A
These are M.
Fishers owne words, in the Paper by him spread; as also all that follow the Letter F. BRIEFE RELATION OF WHAT PASSED in a third priuate CONFERENCE,
betweene a certaine B. and me, BEFORE &c.
ANSVVERED BY
R. B. Chaplaine to the B.
I hope you will pardon the B. if iust occasion hath spunne my Answer for him to Longiore morâ opus est, vt soluas quaestionem, quam vt proponas. Sen. Ep. 48. length.
The Occasion of this Conference, was.
THE Occasion of this third Conference you should know sufficiently; you were an Actor in it, as well as the rest. Whether you haue related the two former truly, appeares by D r Whites Relation, or Exposition of them. The B. was present at none, but this third, of which he is readie by me to giue the Church an account. [Page 2] But of this third, whether that were the cause which A you alledge, he cannot tell: You say,
(It was) obserued, That in the second Conference, all the speech was about particular matters; little, or none, about a continuall, infallible, visible Church, which was the chiefe and onely Point (in which the person doubting) required satisfaction: as hauing formerly settled their mind, That it was not for them or any other vnlearned B persons to take vpon them to iudge of particulars, without depending vpon the Iudgement of the true Church.
The opinion of that person in this, was neuer opened to the B. And it is very fit the people should looke to the Iudgement of the Church, before they be too busie with particulars. But yet neither 1. Cor. 10. 15. Quis non sine vllo Magistro aut interprete, ex se facile cognoscat, &c. Nouat. de Trin. c. 23. (& loquitur de mysterio Passionis Christi.) Scripture, nor any good Authoritie, denyes them some moderate vse of their owne vnderstanding and iudgement, especially in things familiar and euident, which euen ordinarie Capacities may as easily vnderstand, as reade: C And therefore some particulars a Christian may iudge, without depending.
(That person) therefore hauing heard it granted in the first Conference, That there must be a continuall visible Companie euer since Christ, teaching vnchanged Doctrine in all fundamentall Points, that is, Points necessarie to Saluation; desired to heare this confirmed, and proofe brought, which was that continuall, infallible, visible D Church, in which one may, and out of which one cannot attaine Saluation. And therefore hauing appointed a time of meeting betweene a B. and me, and thereupon hauing sent for the B. and me, before the B. came (the doubting persons) came first to the roome where I was, and debated before me the aforesaid Question; and not doubting of the first part, to wit, That there must be a continuall visible Church, as they had heard graunted by E D r White and L. K. &c.
What D r White and L. K. graunted, neyther the B. nor I heard. But I thinke, both graunted a continuall and a visible Church; neyther of them an infallible, at least in your sense. [Page 3] And your selfe, in this Relation, speake distractedly: For in A these few Lines from the beginning hither, twice you adde infallible betweene continuall and visible, and twice you leaue it out. But this concerneth D r W. and he hath answered it.
The Question was, Which was that Church? (One) would needs defend, That not onely the Romane, but also the Greeke Church was right.
When that Honourable Personage answered, I was not by to heare. But I presume hee was so farre from graunting, B that onely the Romane Church was right, as that he did not graunt it right: and that hee tooke on him no other defence of the poore Greeke Church, than was according to Truth.
I told him, That the Greeke Church had plainely changed and taught false, in a Point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost; and that I had heard say, that euen his Maiestie should say, That the Greeke Church hauing erred against the Holy Ghost, had lost the Holy Ghost. C
You are very bold with his Maiestie, to relate him vpon hearesay. My intelligence serues me not, to tell you what his Maiestie said: but if hee said it not, you haue beene too credulous to beleeue, and too suddaine to report it. Princes deserue, and were wont to haue more respect than so. If his Maiestie did say it, there is truth in the speech; the error is yours onely, by mistaking what is meant by loosing the Holy Ghost. For a particular Church may be said to loose the Holy Ghost two wayes, or in two degrees: The one, when it looses such speciall D assistance of that blessed Spirit, as preserues it from all dangerous errors, and finnes, and the temporall punishment which is due vnto them: And in this sense, the Greeke Church lost the Holy Ghost; for they erred against him, they sinned against God: and for this, or other sinnes, they were deliuered into another Babylonish Captiuitie vnder the Turke; in which they yet are, and from which God in his mercie deliuer them. The other is, when it looses not onely this assistance, but all assistance ad hoc; to this, that they may remaine any longer a true Church. And so Corinth, and Ephesus, and diuers others, E haue lost the Holy Ghost. But in this sense, the whole Greeke Church lost not the Holy Ghost; for they continue a true Church in substance, to and at this day, though erroneous in the point which you mention.
(The said person) not knowing what to answer, called A in the B. who sitting downe first, excused himselfe, as one vnprouided, and not much studied in Controuersies, and desiring, that in case he should faile, yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of.
The B. indeed excused himselfe, and he had great reason so to doe. But his Reason being grounded vpon his Modestie for the most part, he is willing I should let you insult at your B pleasure. This onely by the way: It may be fit others should know, the B. had no information, where the other Conferences brake off; no instruction, what should be the ground of this third Conference; nor the full time of foure and twentie houres, to bethinke himselfe: whereas you make the sifting of these and the like Questions to the very Branne, your dayly worke, and came throughly furnished to the businesse. Saint Augustine De [...] Cred. cap. 2. said once, Scio me inualidum esse, I know I am weake; and yet he made good his Cause. And the B. preferring the Cause before his Credit, was modest and reasonable: C For there is no reason, the weight of that whole Cause should rest vpon any one particular; and great reason, that the personall defects of any man should presse him, but not the Cause.
It hauing a hundred better Schollers to maintaine it, than he. To which I said, There were a thousand better Schollers than I, to maintaine the Catholike Cause.
The B. in this had neuer so poore a conceit of the Protestants D Cause, as to thinke they had but a hundred better than he, to maintaine it. That which hath a hundred, may haue as many more, as it pleases God to giue, and more than you. And the B. shall euer be glad, that the Church of England (which at this time, if his memorie reflect not amisse, he named) may haue farre more able defendants than himselfe: he shall neuer enuie them, but reioyce for her. And hee makes no question, but that if hee had named a thousand, you would haue multiplyed yours into ten thousand, for the Catholike Cause, as you call it. And this confidence of yours hath euer beene fuller of noyse, E than proofe. But you admonish againe.
Then the Question about the Greeke Church being proposed, I said as before, that it had erred.
Then I thinke the Question about the Greeke Church was A proposed. But after you had with confidence enough not spared to say, That what the B. would not acknowledge in this cause, you would wring and extort from him; then indeed you said as before, that it had erred: And this no man denyed. But euerie Error denyes not Christ, the Foundation; or makes Christ denie, it, or thrust it from the Foundation.
The B. said, That the Error was not in Point fundamentall.
The B. was not so peremptorie. His speech was, That B diuers learned men, and some of your owne, were of opinion, That (as the Greekes expressed themselues) it was a Question not simply Fundamentall. The B. knowes and acknowledges that Error, of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne, to be a grieuous Error in Diuinitie. And sure it would haue grated the Foundation, if they had so denyed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne, as that they had made an inequalitie betweene the Persons. But since their forme of speech is, Non ex [...] sed Spiritum [...] esse dicimus. Damascen. Lib. 1. Fid. Orth. c. 11. Et Patris per Filium. Ib. That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne, and is C the Spirit of the Sonne, without making any difference in the consubstantialitie of the Persons; the B. dares not denie them to be a true Church for this, though he confesses them an erroneous Church in this particular.
Now that diuers learned men were of opinion, That à Filio, & per Filium, in the sense of the Greeke Church, was but a Question, in modo loquendi, in manner of speech Pluralitas in voce saluataê vnitate in re, non repugnat vnitati fidei. Durand. lib. 3. d. 25. q. 2., and therefore not fundamentall, D is euident. Magist. 1. Sent. D. 11. d. Sane sciendum est, quod licet in praesenti articulo a nobis Graeci verbo discordent, tamen sensu non differunt, &c. Bandinus, l. 1. de Trin. d. 11. & Bonauent. in 1. Sent. d. 11. A. 1. q. 1. §. 12. Licet Graecis [...], quùm dixit Graecos obijcere [...] Romanis addendo (Filioque) quia sine huius Articuli professione salus erat, non respondet negando salutem esse, sed dicit tantum, opportunam fuisse determinationem propter periculum. Et postea, §. 15. Sunt qui volunt sustinere opinionem Graecorum & Latinorum, distinguendo duplicem modum procedendi. Sed fortè si duo sapientes, vnus Graecus, alter Latinus, vterque verus amator veritatis, & non propriae dictionis &c. de hac visa contrarietate disquirerent, pateret vtique tandem ipsam contrarietatem non esse veraciter realem, sicut est vocalis. Scotus, in 1. Sen. d. 11. q. 1. Antiquorum Graecorum à Latinis discrepantia in voce potius est, & modo explicandi Emanationem Sp. S. quam in ipsaê re &c. Iodocus Clichtouaeus in Damasc. L. 1. Fid. Orth. c. 11. Et quidam ex Graecis concedunt, quod sit à Filio, vel ab eo profluat. Thom. p. 1. q. 36. A. 2. C. Et Thomas ipse dicit Sp. S. procedere mediatè à Filio. Ib. A 3. ad 1. saltem ratione personarum spirantium. Respondeo cum Bessarione & Gennadio Damascenum non negasse Sp. S. procedere ex Filio quod ad rem attinet, quum dixerit [...] esse imaginem Filij & per Filium, sed existimasse [...] dici per Filium, quam ex Filio, quantum ad [...] Ioquendi, &c. Bellarm. lib. 2. [...] Christo, c. 27. §. Respondeo igitur, & Tollet. in S. Ioh. 15. Ar. 25. & Lutheran. Resp. ad Resp. 2. Ieremiae Patriarchae. The Master and his Schollers agree vpon it. The Greekes (saith hee) confesse the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Sonne, with the Apostle, Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth, E S. Ioh. 16. And since, Non est aliud, It is not another thing to say, The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Sonne, [Page 6] then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Sonne; in this they A seeme to agree with vs in eandem Fidei Sententiam, vpon the same Sentence of Faith, though they differ in words. Now in this cause, where the words differ, but the sentence of Faith is the same, Eadem penitus Sententia, vbi supra Clichtou. [...] eadem, euen altogether the same, Can the Point be fundamentall? You may make them no Church (as Bellaram. 4. de Notis Eccl. cap. 8. Bellarmine doth) and so denie them saluation, which cannot be had out of the true Church; but the B. dares not.
It ought to be no easie thing, to condemne a man of Heresie, in foundation of Faith; much lesse, a Church; least of all, so ample and large a Church as the Greeke, especially so, as to B make them no Church. Heauen Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes, when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne Girdle: And it is good counsaile which Alphonsus à Castro Lib. 3. contra Haeres. fol. 93. A., one of your owne, giues; Let them consider, that pronounce easily of Heresie, how easie it is for themselues to erre. Or if you will pronounce, consider what it is that seperates from the Church simply, and not in part onely. I must needs professe Iunius Animadin Bellarm. Cont. 2. l. 3. c. 23., that I wish heartily, as well as others, that those distressed men, whose Crosse is heauie alreadie, had beene more plainely and moderately dealt withall, C though they thinke a diuerse thing from vs, than they haue beene by the Church of Rome. But hereupon you say you were forced.
Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against Dr. White, concerning Points Fundamentall.
Hereupon it is true, that you read a large discourse out of a Booke printed, which you said was yours. The particulars D (all of them at the least) the B. tells me, he doth not now remember, and is sure he did not then approoue. But if they be such as were formerly brought against [...] White, they are by him formerly answered. The first thing you did, was the righting of S. Augustine F. First righting the Sentence of S. Austine, Ferendus est disputator errans, &c.: Which Sentence the B. doth not at all remember was so much as named in the third Conference, much lesse was it stood vpon, and then righted by you. Another place of S. Augustine indeed was (which you omit) but the place of it comes after, about Tradition, to which I remit it. But you tell vs of a great proofe made out of this place F. By which is prooued, That all Points defined by the Church, are fundamentall.. E
These words containe two Propositions: One, That all Points defined by the Church, are Fundamentall; The other, That this is prooued out of this place of S. Augustine.
1. For the first, That all Points defined by the Church, are Fundamentall. [Page 7] It was not the least meanes by which Rome grew to A her Greatnesse, to blast euerie Opposer shee had, with the name of Heretike, or Schismatike; for this serued to shriuell the credit of the persons: and the persons once brought into contempt, and ignominie, all the good they desired in the Church, fell to dust, for want of creditable persons to backe and support it. To make this proceeding good in these later yeeres, this course (it seemes) was taken. The Schoole, that must maintaine (and so they doe) That all Points defined by the Church, are thereby Your owne word. Fundamentall, Inconcussâ fide ab omnibus. Thom 2.2. q. 1. Art. 10. C. necessarie to be beleeued, Scotus, 1. sent. d. 11. q. 1. of the substance of the Faith, and that, though it be determined quite Ecclesiae voces etiam extra Scripturam. Stap. Relect. Con. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. Quae maturo iudicio definiuit, &c. solidum est, & etiamsi nullo scripturarum aut euidenti, aut probabili testimonio cō firmaretur. Ibid. Extra Scripturam. B And then Et penes Cercopes victoria sit. Greg. Naz. de differen. vitae. Cercopes 1. Astutos & veteratoriae improbitatis Episcopos, qui artibus suis ac dolis omnia Concilia perturbabant. Schol. ib. leaue the wise and actiue heads to take order, that there be strength enough readie to determine what is fittest for them.
But since these men distinguish not, nor you, betweene the Church in generall, and a Generall Councell, which is but her Representation, for determinations of the Faith; the B. though he be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawfull, generall, and consenting Authoritie; though hee giue as much as can be giuen to the definitions of Councels, truly generall: nay, suppose hee should graunt (which hee doth not) C That Generall Councels cannot erre, yet this cannot downe with him, That all Points euen so defined, are Fundamentall. For Deductions are not prime and Natiue Principles, nor are Superstructures, Foundations. That which is a Foundation for all, cannot be one, and another, in different Christians; for then it could be no constant Rule for any, nor could the soules of men rest vpon a shaking Foundation. No: If it be a true Foundation, it must be common to all, and firme vnder all; in which sense, the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall. And Quum enim vna & eadem fides sit, neque is qui multum de ipsa dicere potest plusquā oportet dicit; neque qui parum, ipsam imminuit. Iren. li. 1. aduers. Haer. c. 3. Irenaeus layes this for a ground, That the whole Church (howsoeuer D dispersed in place) speakes this with one mouth. Hee which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake, vtters no more than this; and lesse than this, the most simple doth not vtter. Therefore the Creed (of which hee speakes) is a common, is a constant Foundation: and an Explicite Faith must be of this, in them which haue the vse of Reason; for both Guides and simple people, all the Church, vtter this.
Now many things are defined by the Church, which are but Deductions out of this: which, suppose them deduced right, mooue farre from the Foundation; without which Deductions, E explicitely beleeued, many millions of Christians goe to Heauen, and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the Faith. True Deductions from the Article, may require necessarie beleefe in them which are able, and doe goe along with them, from the [Page 8] Principle to the Conclusion: but I doe not see either that the A Learned doe make them necessarie to all, or any reason why they should: Therefore they cannot be Fundamentall.
Besides, that which is Fundamentall in the Faith of Christ, is a Rocke immooueable, and can neuer bee varied: Neuer Resolutio Occham est, quod nec [...], nec [...] Generale, nec summus Pontifex potest facere Articulum, quod non suit Articulus. Sed in dubijs propositionibus potest Ecclesia [...] an sint Catholicae, &c. [...] sic determinando non [...], quod sint Catholicae quum prius essent ante Ecclesiae determinationem, &c. Almain. in 3. D. 25. q. 1.. Therefore, if it be Fundamentall after the Church hath defined it, it was Fundamentall before the definition; else it is mooueable, and then no Christian hath where to rest. And if it be immooueable, as Regula fidei vna [...] est, sola illa immobilis & irreformabilis. Tertull. de [...]. vel. cap. 1. In hac fide, &c. nihil tran. mutare, &c. Athan. epist. ad Iouin. de fide. indeed it is, no Decree of a Councell, be it neuer so generall, can alter immooueable Verities, no more B than it can change immooueable Natures. Therefore, if the Church in a Councell define any thing, the thing defined is not Fundamentall, because the Church hath defined it; nor can be made so by the definition of the Church, if it be not so in it selfe. For if the Church had this power, shee might make a new Article of the Faith, Occham, Almain. 3. sent. D. 25. q. 1. which the Learned among your selues denie: For the Articles of the Faith cannot encrease in substance, but onely in explication Thom. 2.2. q. 1. Ar. 7. C..
Nor is this hard to be prooued out of your owne Schoole; C for Scotus, in 1. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. Scotus professeth it in this verie particular of the Greeke Church: If there be (saith he) a true reall difference betweene the Greekes and the Latines about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, then either they or we be vere Haeretici, truly and indeed Heretikes. And he speakes this of the old Greekes, long before any decision of the Church in this Controuersie: For his instance, is in S. Basil, and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side, and S. Ierome, Augustine, and Ambrose, on the other. And who dares call any of these Heretikes? is his challenge. I denie not, but that Scotus addes there, That howsoeuer this was before, yet ex D quo, from the time that the Catholike Church declared it, it is to be held as of the substance of Faith. But this cannot stand with his former Principle, if hee intend by it, That whatsoeuer the Church defines, shall be ipso facto, and for that determinations sake Fundamentall. For if before the determination (supposing the difference reall) some of those Worthies were truly Heretikes (as hee confesses) then somewhat made them so; and that could not be the Decree of the Church, which then was not: Therefore it must be somewhat really false, that made them so; and fundamentally false, E if it had made them Heretikes against the Foundation. But Scotus was wiser, than to intend this. It may be hee saw the streame too strong for him to swim against, therefore hee went on with the Doctrine of the time, That the Churches Sentence [Page 9] is of the substance of Faith, but meant not to betray the A Truth; for hee goes no further than Ecclesia declarauit, since the Church hath declared it, which is the word that is vsed by diuers Bellarm. l. 2. de Conc. Auth. cap. 12. Concilia quùm definiunt, non faciunt aliquid esse infallibilis veritatis, sed declarant. Explicare, Bonauent. in 1. D. 11. A. 1. q. 1. ad finem. Explanare, declarare, Th. 1. q. 36. A. 2. ad 2. & 2. 2. q. 1. A. 10. ad 1..
Now the Sent. 1. D. 11. Master teaches, and the Aib. Mag. in [...] Sent. D. 11. Art. 7. Schollers too, That euerie thing which belongs to the exposition or declaration of another, intus est, is not another contrarie thing, but is contayned within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted: from which, if the declaration depart, it is faultie and erronious, B because in stead of declaring, it giues another and a contrarie Nos semper nec quicquam praetereà. Vin. Lir. c. 32. sense. Therefore, when the Church declares any thing in a Councell, either that which she declares, was Intus, or Extra, in the nature and veritie of the thing, or out of it. If it were Extra, without the nature of the thing declared; then the declaration of the thing is false, and so, farre from being fundamentall in the Faith In noua haeresi veritas prius erat de fide etsi non ita declarata. Scotus, in 1. D. 11. q. 1. in fine. Haeretici multa quae erant implicita fidei nostrae compulerunt explicare. Bonauent. in 1. D. 11. A. 1. q. 1. ad finē. Thom. 1. q. 36. A. 2. ad 2.. If it were Intus, within the compasse and nature of the thing, though not expert and apparant to euerie Eye; then the declaration is true, but not otherwise fundamentall, than the thing is which is declared: For Intus C cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is; if it were, it could not be Intus. Therefore nothing is simply fundamentall, because the Church declares it, but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares.
And it is a slight and poore euasion that is commonly vsed, That the declaration of the Church makes it fundamentall, quoad nos, in respect of vs; for it doth not that neither: for no respect to vs, can varie the Foundation. The Churches declaration can bind vs to peace, and externall obedience, where there is not expresse letter of Scripture and sense agreed on; D but it cannot make any thing fundamentall to vs, that is not so in the nature of it. For if the Church can so adde, that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be fundamentall in the Faith, that was not, then it can take a thing from the foundation, and make it by declaring, not to be fundamentall; which all men graunt, no power of the Church can doe: For the power of adding any thing contrarie, and of detracting any thing necessarie, are alike Deut. 4.2. Tho. Suppl. q. 6. A. 6. C. forbidden. Now nothing is more apparant than this to the eye of all men, That the Church of Rome hath determined, or declared, or defined (call it what you will) very E many things, that are not in their owne nature fundamentall, and therefore neither are, not can be made so, by her adiudging them.
2. For the second, That it is prooued by this place of S. Augustine, [Page 10] That all Points defined by the Church, are fundamentall. A You might haue giuen me that place cited in the Margin, and eased my paines to seeke it; but it may be there was somewhat in concealing it: For you doe so extraordinarily right this place, that you were loth (I thinke) any [...] should see how you wrong it. The place of S. Augustine is this, against the Pelagians, about Remission of Originall sinne in Infants: August. Serm. 14. de verb. Apost. c. 12. Fundata res est. In alijs quaestionib' non diligenter digestis, nondum plenaê Ecclesiae authoritate [...] ferendus est disputator errans: ibi ferendu; est Error, non tantum progredi debet, vt etiam fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur. This is a thing founded; An erring Disputor is to be borne with in other Questions not diligently digested, not yet made firme by [...] Authoritie of the Church, their Error is to be borne with: but it ought not to goe so farre, that it should labour to shake the Foundation it selfe B of the Church. This is the place: but it can neuer follow out of this place (I thinke) That euerie thing defined by the Church, is Fundamentall.
For first, he speakes of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture, not a Church definition. This appeares: for few Lines before he tells vs, Ibid. cap. 20. There was a Question mooued to S. Cyprian, Whether Baptisme was concluded to the eight day, as well as Circumcision? And no doubt was made then of the Origine [...]. beginning of Sinne, and that Ex eaê re vnde nulla erat quaestio, [...] est exorta quaestio. out of this thing about which no Question was mooued, that Question that was made, was answered. And Hoc de Fundamento Ecclesiae sumpfit ad confirmandum Lapidem nutantem. againe, That S. Cyprian C tooke that which he gaue in answere, from the Foundation of the Church, to confirme a Stone that was shaking. Now S. Cyprian, in all the Answer that he giues, hath not one word of any definition of the Church: therefore Ea Res, That thing by which he answered, was a Foundation of prime and settled Scripture Doctrine, not any definition of the Church: Therefore, that which he tooke from the Foundation of the Church, to fasten the Stone that shooke, was not a definition of the Church, but the Foundation of the Church it selfe, the Scripture, vpon which it builded: as appeareth in the Concil. Mileuit. c. 2. Mileuitan Councell; D where, the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned, is the Rule of Rom. 5.15. Scripture, Rom. 5.12. Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense, That the Disputor is not to be borne any longer, that shall Vt Fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur. endeuour to shake the Foundation it selfe, vpon which the whole Church is grounded.
Secondly, If S. Augustine did meane by Founded and Foundation, the definition of the Church, because of these words, This thing is founded, This is made firme by full authoritie of the Church, and the words following these, To shake the foundation of the Church; yet it can neuer follow out of any, or all these E Circumstances (and these are all That all Points defined by the Church, are Fundamentall in the Faith. For first, no man denyes, but the Church is a 1. Tim. 3.15. Foundation; That things defined by it, are founded vpon it: And yet hence it cannot follow, That [Page 11] the thing that is so founded, is Fundamentall in the Faith; for A things may be Mos fundatissimus. S. Aug. ep. 28. founded vpon humane Authoritie, and be verie certaine, yet not Fundamentall in the Faith: Nor yet can it follow, This thing is founded, therefore euerie thing determined by the Church, is founded. Againe, that which followes, That those things are not to be opposed which are made firme by full Authoritie of the Church, cannot conclude they are therefore fundamentall in the Faith: For full Church Authoritie, is but Church Authoritie; and Church Authoritie, when it is at full Sea (the time that included the Apostles, being past, and not comprehended in it) is not simply Diuine Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 3. A. 1.: therefore the Sentence B of it not fundamentall in the Faith. And yet no erring Disputor may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in Councell layes: But plaine Scripture, with euident sense, or a full demonstratiue argument, must haue roome, where a wrangling and erring Disputor may not be allowed it. And there's neither of these but may conuince the definition of the Councell, if it be ill founded. And the Articles of the Faith may easily prooue it is not fundamentall, if in deed and veritie it be not so.
And the B. hath read some bodie, that sayes (Is it not you?) C That things are fundamentall in the Faith two wayes: One, in their Matter, such as are all things as be so in themselues; the other, in the Manner, such as are all things that the Church hath defined, and determined to be of Faith: And that so, some things that are de modo, of the manner of being, are of Faith. But in plaine truth, this is no more, than if you should say, Some things are fundamentall in the Faith, and some are not. For wrangle while you will, you shall neuer be able to prooue, That any thing which is but de modo, a consideration of the manner of being onely, can possibly be fundamentall in the Faith. D
And since you make such a Foundation of this place, I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you; it is a venture but I shall find it Ezech. 13.11. vntempered. Your assertion is, All Points defined by the Church, are fundamentall: your proofe, this place, Because that is not to be shaken, which is setled Plenaê [...] Authoritate. by full authoritie of the Church. Then it seemes your meaning is, that this Point there spoken of, The remission of [...] sinne in Baptisme of Infants, was defined, when S. Augustine wrote this, by a full Sentence of a Generall Councell. First, If you say it was, Lib. 2. de Aut. Conc. c. 5. A solis particularibus. Bellarmine will tell you it is false; and that the Pelagian Heresie was neuer condemned in an E Oecumenicall Councell, but only in Nationalls. But Bellarmine is deceiued: for while they stood out impudently against Nationall Councels, some of them defended Nestorius; which gaue occasion to the first Can. 1. & [...]. Ephesine Councell to excommunicate [Page 12] and depose them. And yet this will not serue your turne A for this place: For S. Augustine was then dead, and therefore could not meane the Sentence of that Councell in this place. Secondly, And if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenicall Synod, plena Authoritas Ecclesiae, the full Authoritie of the Church, there mentioned, doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenicall Councell, but for some Nationall; as this was condemned in a Concil. Mileuit. Can. 2. Nationall Councell: and then the full Authoritie of the Church here, is no more than the full Authoritie of this Church of Nay, if your owne Capellus bee true, De Apell. Eccl. Afric. c. 2. n. 5. It was but a Prouinciall of Numidia, not a Plenarie of Africke. Africke. And I hope that Authoritie B doth not make all Points defined by it, to be Fundamentall: You will say, Yes, if that Councell be confirmed by the Pope. And I must euer wonder why S. Augustine should say, The full Authoritie of the Church, and not bestow one word vpon the Pope, by whose Authoritie onely that Councell, as all other, haue their fulnesse of Authoritie, in your iudgement. An inexpiable omission, if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true.
Secondly, J required to know what Points the B. would account Fundamentall. Hee said, All the C Points of the Creed were such.
Against this, I hope you except not. For since the Tertull. Apol. contra gentes, c. 47. de [...]. Virg. cap. 1. S. August. Serm. 15. de Temp. cap. 2. [...] in [...]. apud Cyprianum, p. 357. Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith, Alb. Mag. in 1. Sent. D. 11. A. 7. since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles, are the two Regular Precepts by which a Diuine is gouerned, about the Faith; since your owne Concil. Trid. Sess. 3. Councell of Trent decrees, That it is that Principle of Faith, in which all that professe Christ doe necessarily agree, Et Fundamentum firmum & vnicum, not the firme alone, but the onely Foundation; since it is Excommunication [...]. ibid. Dub. 2. & 3. in Literam. ipso iure, for D any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed; since the whole body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed, as that the Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. A. 7. C. substance of it was beleeued euen before the comming of Christ, though not so expressely, as since in the number of the Articles; since Bellarmine 4. de verb. Dei, non Scrip. cap. 11. confesses, That all things simply necessarie for all mens saluation, are in the Creed and the Decalogue: What reason can you haue to except? And yet for all this, euerie thing Fundamentall is not of a like neerenesse to the Foundation, nor of equall Primenesse in the Faith. And the B. graunting the Creed to be Fundamentall, doth not E denie, but that there are Ibid. Thom. Quaedam prima Credibilia, Certaine prime Principles of Faith, in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded vp: One of which, since Christ, is that of S. Iohn 1. Ioh. 4. 2., Euery Spirit that confesseth Iesus Christ [Page 13] come in the flesh, is of God: And one, both before the comming A of Christ, and since, is that of S. Paul Heb. 11.6., He that comes to God, must beleeue that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him.
I asked, How then it happened, as M r Rogers saith, that the English Church is not yet resolued, what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell.
The English Church neuer made doubt (that I know) what was the sense of that Article. The words are so plaine, they B beare their meaning before them. Shee was content to put that Article Art. 3. among those, to which she requires subscription, not as doubting of the sense, but to preuent the Cauills of some, who had beene too busie in crucifying that Article, and in making it all one with the Article of the Crosse, or but an Exposition of it.
And sure the B. thinkes, and so doe I, That the Church of England is better resolued of the right sense of this Article, than the Church of Rome; especially if she must be tryed by her Writers, as you trie the Church of England by M r Rogers. C For you cannot agree, whether this Article be a meere Tradition, or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it. In 1. D. 11. q. [...]. Scotus and Rel. Con. 5. q. 5. A. 1. Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture; but 4. de Christo, c. 6. & 12. Scripturae passim hoc docent. Bellarmine is resolute, that this Article is euerie where in Scripture; and 2.2. q. 1. A. 9. ad 1. Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed. The Church of England neuer doubted it, and S. Augustine Epist. 99. prooues it.
And yet againe you are different for the sense: For you agree not, whether the Soule of Christ, in triduo mortis, in the time of his death, did goe downe into Hell really, and was present D there; or virtually, and by effects onely: For Th. p. 3. q. 52. A. 2. C. per [...] essentiam. Thomas holds the first, and Dur. in 3. d. 22. q. 3. Durand holds the latter. Then you agree not, whether the Soule of Christ did descend really, and in essence, into the lowest Pit of Hell, and place of the Damned, as L. 4. de Christo, c. 16. Bellarmine once held probable, and prooued it; or really only into that place or Region of Hell, which you call Limbum Patrum, and then but virtually from thence into the Lower Hell: to which Recogn. p. 11. Bellarmine reduces himselfe, and giues his reason, because it is the Sequuntur [...] Tho. p. 3. q 52. A. 2. common opinion of the Schoole. Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the E Creed, and beleeues them, without further dispute, and in that sense which the antient Primitiue Fathers of the Church agreed in. And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolued in the sense of this Article, Is it not as [Page 14] lawfull for them to say, (I conceiue thus, or thus, of it; yet if any A other way of his Descent be found truer than this, I denie it not, but as yet I know no other) as it was for In 3. D. 22. q. 3. n. 9. Durand to say it, and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith?
The B. said, That M r Rogers was but a priuate man. But (said I) if M r Rogers (writing as he did by publike Authoritie) be accounted onely a priuate man, &c.
The B. said truth, when he said M r Rogers was a priuate man. And I take it, you will not allow euerie speech of euerie B man, though allowed by Authoritie to be printed, to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. This hath beene oft complained of on both sides, The imposing particular mens Assertions vpon the Church: yet I see, you meane not to leaue it. And surely, as Controuersies are now handled (by some of your partie) at this day, I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand, but I haue long thought it a kind of descent into Hell, to be conuersant in them. I would the Authors would take heed in time, and not seeke to blind the people, or cast a mist before euident Truth, least it cause a finall descent to that place C of Torment. But since you hold this course, Stapleton was of greater note with you, than Rogers is with vs; and as he, so his Relection: And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which he affirmes, Cont. 5. q. 5. A. 1. The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell, and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church? If it be, then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie ouer the whole Church? Shall hee haue his power ouer the Catholike Church giuen him expressely in Scripture, in Matth. 16.19. the Keyes to enter, and in Ioh. 21.15. Pasce, to feed when he is in; and when he hath fed, to Luc. 22.32. confirme; and in all these, not to erre and faile in his ministration: D And is the Catholike Church, in and ouer which he is to doe all these great things, quite left out? Belike, the Holy Ghost was carefull to giue him his power; Yes, in any case; but left the assigning of his great Cure, the Catholike Church, to Tradition: And it were well for him, if hee could so prescribe for what he now claymes.
But what if after all this, M r Rogers there sayes no such thing? as in truth he doth not. His words are: Rogers, in Art. Eccl. Angl. Art. 3. All Christians acknowledge he descended; but in the interpretation of the Article, there is not that consent that were to be wished. What is this E to the Church of England, more than others? And againe, Ibid. Till wee know the natiue and vndoubted sense of this Article, is M r Rogers (Wee) the Church of England? or rather, his and some others Iudgement of the Church of England?
But if M r Rogers be onely a priuate man; In what A Booke may wee find the Protestants publike Doctrine? The B. answered, That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne.
What, was the B. so ignorant, to say, The Articles of the Church of England were the publike Doctrine of all the Protestants? or, That all Protestants were sworne to the Articles of England, as this speech seemes to implie? Sure he was not. Was not the immediate speech before, of the Church of England? And B how comes the subiect of the speech to be varyed in the next Lines? Nor yet speake I this, as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines against which they ioyntly take exceptions against the Romane Church, as appeares by their seuerall Confessions. Nor did the B. say, That the Booke of Articles onely was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine: Shee is not so narrow, nor hath shee purpose to exclude any thing which shee acknowledges hers; nor doth shee wittingly permit any crossing of her publike declarations: Yet shee is not such a Shrew C to her Children, as to denie her Blessing, or denounce an Anathema against them, if some peaceably dissent in some particulars, remoter from the Foundation, as your owne Schoolemen differ. And if the Church of Rome, since shee grew to her greatnesse, had not beene so fierce in this course, Christendome (I persuade my selfe) had beene in happier peace at this day.
And that the Scriptures onely, not any vnwritten Tradition, was the Foundation of their Faith.
The Church of England grounded her Positiue Articles D vpon Scripture; and her Negatiue Refute, where the thing affirmed by you, is not affirmed in Scripture, nor directly to be concluded out of it. And since you are pleased before to passe from the Church of England to all Protestants, you may know for your comfort, that all Protestants agree most strongly in this, That the Scripture is sufficient to saluation, and containes E in it all things necessarie to it. The Fathers S. Bas. l. de vera & pia fide. Manifesta defectio fidei est importare quicquam eorum quae scripta non sunt. S. Hilar. l. 2. ad Const. Aug. Fidem tantum secundum ea, quae scripta sunt desiderantem, & hoc qui repudiat, Antichristus est, & qui simulat Anathema est. S. Aug. lib. 2. de Doctr. Christian. c. 9. In ijs quae apertè in Scripturaê posita sunt, inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi. And to this place, Bellarm. l. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto, c. 11. saith, That S. Augustine speakes de illis dogmatibus quae necessaria sunt omnibus simpliciter; of those points of Faith which are necessarie simply for all men. So farre then he grants the Question. And that you may know it fell not from him on the suddaine, he had said as much before in the beginning of the same Chapter, and here he confirmes it againe. are [Page 16] plaine; the Scotus. Proleg. in Sent. q. 2. Scriptura sufficienter continet Doctrinam necessatiam viatori. Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. A. 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi & Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficienter explicata: & loquitur ibi de verbo scripto V. & N. Testamenti. Schoolemen not strangers in it. A And haue not wee reason then to account it as it is, The Foundation of our Faith? And Scripturam Fundamentum esse & Columnam fidei fatemur in suo genere, i. in genere testimoniorum, & in materia credendorum. Relect. Con. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. in fine. Stapleton himselfe, though an angrie Opposite, confesses, That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith, that is in the nature of Testimonie, and in the matter or thing to be beleeued. And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which wee are to goe for Witnesse, if there be doubt about the Faith, and in which we are to find the thing that is to be beleeued, as necessarie in the Faith; we neuer did nor neuer will refute any Tradition B that is Vniuersall and Apostolike, for the better exposition of the Scripture; nor any definition of the Church, in which she goes to the Scripture for what shee teaches, and thrusts nothing as fundamentall in the Faith vpon the world, but in what the Scripture is Materia Credendorum, the substance of that which is to be beleeued, whether immediately and expressely in words, or more remotely, till a cleare and full deduction draw it out.
I asked, How he knew Scripture to be Scripture; and in particular, Genesis, Exodus, &c. These are beleeued C to be Scripture, yet not prooued out of any place of Scripture. The B. said, That the Bookes of Scripture are Principles to be supposed, and needed not to be prooued.
I did neuer loue too curious a search into that which might put a man into a Wheele, and circle him so long betweene proouing Scripture by Tradition, and Tradition by Scripture, till the Deuill find a meanes to dispute him into Infidelitie, and make him beleeue neither. I hope this is no part D of your meaning: yet I doubt, this Question, How doe you know Scripture to be Scripture? hath done more harme, than you will be euer able to helpe by Tradition. But I must follow that way which you draw me. And because it is so much insisted vpon by you, and is it selfe a matter of such consequence, I will sift it a little further.
Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Diuinitie, haue vsed diuers meanes to prooue it. All haue not gone the same way, nor all the right way. You cannot be right, that resolue Faith of the Scriptures, being the Word of God, into E onely Tradition; for onely and no other proofe, are equall. To prooue the Scripture therefore (so called by way of Excellence) to be the Word of God; first, some flye to the Testimonie and Witnesse of the Church, and her Tradition, which [Page 17] constantly beleeues, and vnanimously deliuers it: secondly, A some to the Light and the Testimonie which the Scripture giues to it selfe, with other internall proofes which are obserued in it, and to be found in no other Writing whatsoeuer: thirdly, some to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost, which cleares vp the Light that is in Scripture, and seales this Faith to the soules of men, that it is Gods Word: fourthly, All that haue not imbrutished themselues, and sunke below their Species and order of Nature, giue euen Naturall Reason leaue to come in, and make some proofe, and giue some approbation, vpon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments.
1. For the first: The Tradition of the Church taken and B considered alone, it is so farre from being the onely, that it cannot be a sufficient proofe to beleeue, by Diuine Faith, That Scripture is the Word of God: for that which is a full and sufficient proofe, is able of it selfe to settle the soule of man, concerning it. Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to doe this: for it may be further asked, Why he should beleeue the Churches Tradition? And if it be answered, Because the Church is infallibly gouerned by the Holy Ghost, it may yet be demanded, How that may appeare? And if this be demanded, C either you must say, you haue it by speciall Reuelation, which is the priuate Spirit, you obiect to other men; or else you must attempt to prooue it by Scripture, as all of you doe. And that very offer is sufficient acknowledgement, that the Scripture is a higher proofe than the Churches Tradition; which in your owne grounds, is or may be questionable, till you come thither.
Againe, if the Voice of the Church (saying, The Bookes of Scripture, commonly receiued, are the Word of God) be the formall Obiect of Faith, vpon which alone, and absolutely and lastly, I D may resolue my selfe; then euerie man not onely may, but ought, to resolue his Faith into the Voice or Tradition of the Church: for euerie man is bound to rest vpon the proper and formall Obiect of the Faith. But nothing can be more euident than this, That a man ought not to resolue his Faith of this Principle into the Testimonie of the Church: therefore neither is that Testimonie, or Tradition, E the formall Obiect of Faith. The Vox Ecclesiae non est formale obiectum fidei. Stapl. Relect. Contr. 4. q. 3. A. 2. Licet in Articulo Fidei (Credo Ecclesiam) fortè contineatur hoc totum, Credo ea quae docet Ecclesia, tamen non intelligitur necessariò, quod Credo docenti [...] tanquam testi infallibili. Ibid. [...] reijcit [...] Durandi & Gabr. Et Waldens. lib. 2. Doctr. Fid. Art. 2. c. 21. Testimonium Ecclesiae Catholicae est obiectum Fidei Christianae, & Legislatio Scripturae Canonicae, subijcitur tamen ipsi sicut [...] Iudici, & Testimonium veritati, &c. Canus, Loc. lib. 2. c. 8. Nec si Ecclesia aditum nobis praebet ad huiusmodi [...] sacros cogn oscendos, protinus ibi acquiescendum est, sed vltra oportet progredi, & solida Dei veritate niti, &c. Et Scolus, in 3. Dist. 23. q. 1. Learned of your owne part grant this: Although in the Article of the Creed [Page 18] (I beleeue the Catholike Church) peraduenture all this be contained A (I beleeue those things which the Church teacheth) yet this is not necessarily vnderstood, That I beleeue the Church, teaching as an infallible Witnesse. And if they did not confesse this, it were no hard thing to prooue.
It seemes to me verie necessarie, that we be able to prooue the Bookes of Scripture to be the Word of God, by some Authoritie that is absolutely Diuine: for if they be warranted vnto vs by any Authoritie lesse than Diuine, then all things contayned in them (which haue no greater assurance than the Scripture, in which they are read) are not Obiects of Diuine Beleefe. B And that once granted, will enforce vs to yeeld, That all the Articles of Christian Beleefe haue no greater assurance, than Humane or Morall Faith or Credulitie can affoord. An Authoritie then simply Diuine, must make good Scripture's Infallibilitie. This Authoritie cannot be any Testimonie orVoice of the present Church: for our Hook. l. 3. §. 9. Worthies prooue, That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of humane Law: Stapl. Relect. Contr. 4. q. 3. A. 1. & 2. And some among you, not vnworthie for their Learning, prooue it at large, That all the Churches Testimonie, or Voice, or Sentence, (call it what you will) is but suo modo, or aliquo modo, not C simply, but in a manner Diuine. Now that which is Diuine but in a manner, be it the Churches manner, is suo modo non Diuina, in a sort not Diuine. But this great Principle of Faith (the ground and proofe of whatsoeuer else is of Faith) cannot stand firme vpon a proofe that is, and is not, in a manner, and not in a manner, Diuine; as it must, if wee haue no other Anchor than the externall Tradition of the Church.
2. For the second: That Scripture should be fully and sufficiently knowne, as by Diuine and infallible Testimonie, Lumine proprio, by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it D selfe onely, and by the witnesse that it can so giue it selfe; I could neuer yet see cause to allow. Hook. l. 2. §. 4. For as there is no place in Scripture that tells vs, such Bookes, containing such and such particulars, are the Canon and the infallible Will and Word of God; so if there were any such place, that were no sufficient proofe: for a man might iustly aske another Booke, to beare witnesse of that; and againe of that, another; and where euer it were written in Scripture, that must be a part of the whole. And no created thing can alone giue witnesse to it selfe, and E make it euident; nor one part testifie for another, and satisfie, where Reason will but offer to contest. Besides, if it were so cleare by [...] and in giuen Light, What should hinder, but that all which heare it, and doe but vnderstand the Tearmes, should presently assent vnto it, as men vse to doe to Principles euident in [Page 19] themselues? which dayly experience teacheth vs, they doe not. A And this, though I cannot approoue, yet me thinkes you may, and vpon probable grounds at least. For I hope no Romanist will denie, but that there is as much Light in Scripture, to manifest and make ostension of it selfe to be infallibly the written Word of God, as there is in any Tradition of the Church, that it is Diuine, and infallibly the vnwritten Word of God. And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets, Isai. 44. & passim. Thus saith the Lord, and from the mouths of the Act. 28.25. Apostles, That the Holy Ghost spake by them, are at least as able and as fit to beare witnesse to their owne Veritie, as the Church is to beare witnesse B to her owne Traditions, by bare saying they come from the Apostles: And your selues would neuer goe to the Scripture, to prooue that there are Traditions, 2. Thess. 2. 15. Iud. vers. 3. as you doe, if you did not thinke the Scripture as easie to be discouered by inbred Light in it selfe, as Traditions by their Light. And if this be so, then it is as probable at the least (which some of ours affirme) That Scripture may be knowne to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it selfe, as it is (which In your Articles deliuered to D. W. to be answered. you affirme) That a Tradition may be knowne to be such, by the Light which it hath in it selfe. If this Argument were in ieast, this were C an excellent Proposition to make sport withall.
3. For the third: Either some thinke, that there is no sufficient warrant for this, vnlesse they fetch it from the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost, and so looke in vaine after speciall Reuelations, and make themselues by thisvery conceit obnoxious, and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing priuate Spirit; or else you would faine haue them thinke so: For your side, both vpon this and other occasions, doe often challenge, that wee resolue all our Faith into the Dictats of a priuate Spirit; from which wee shall euer prooue our selues as free, if not D freer than you. To the Question in hand then: Suppose it agreed vpon, that there must be Vt testimonia Scripturae certam & indubitatam fidē praestent, necessarium videtur oftendere, quod ipsae diuinae Scripturae sint Dei Spiritu inspiratae. Orig. 4. [...]. a Diuine Faith, Cui subesse non potest falsum, vnder which can rest no possible error, That the Bookes of Scripture are the written Word of God: If they which goe to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost for proofe of this, doe meane by Faith, Obiectum Fidei, The Obiect of Faith, that is to be beleeued; then no question they are out of the ordinarie way: for God neuer sent vs, by any word or warrant of his, to looke for any such speciall and priuate Testimonie, to prooue which that Booke is that wee must beleeue. But if by E Faith, they meane the Habite or Act of Diuine infused Faith, by which vertue they doe beleeue the Credible Obiect, and thing to be beleeued; then their speech is true, and confessed by all Diuines of all sorts. For Faith is the 1. Cor. 12.3, 4. S. Aug. in Psal. 87. gift of God, of God alone, [Page 20] and an infased Habite, in respect whereof, the Soule is meerely A recipient: And therefore the sole Infuser, the Holy Ghost, must not be excluded from that worke, which none can doe but he. For the Holy Ghost, as hee first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles Nec eum Ecclesiae testimonium aut [...] praed. [...] Dei Spiritum, vel ab [...] docente, vel à [...] bis audientious excludimus, sed vtro. iq disertè in ludimus, &c. [...]. Tript. [...]. Whitak. c. 3., so did he not leaue the Church in generall, nor the true members of it in particular, without grace to beleeue what himselfe had reuealed, and made credible. So that Faith, as it is taken for the vertue of Faith, whether it be of this or any other Article, Fides quae caepit ab Ecclesiae Testimonio [...] proponit & [...] ad [...], [...] in Deo intus [...], & intus [...] quod [...] Stapl. [...]. Contr. 4. q 3. a. 2. When graue and learned men doe sometimes hold, that of this Principle there is no proofe, but by the Testimonie of the Spirit, &c. I thinke it is not their meaning, to exclude all outward [...], &c. but rather this, That all other meanes are vneffectuall of [...] to worke Faith, without the speciall grace of God, &c. Hock. lib. 3. §. 8. though it receiue a kind of preparation, or occasion of beginning, from the Testimonie of B the Church, as it proposes and induceth to the Faith, yet it ends in God, reuealing within, and teaching within, that which the Church preached without. For till the Spirit of God mooue the heart of man, he cannot beleeue, be the Obiect neuer so eredible. The speech is true then, but De habitu Fidei quoad fieri [...] & generationem quum à Deo immediatè solo Dono gratuito infusus est, [...] ad quaestionem, nisi quoad hoc quod per [...]. [...], &c. Henr. a [...]. Sum. a. 10. q. 1. D. quite out of the state of this Question, which enquires onely after a sufficient meanes to make this Obiect credible, and fit to be beleeued, against all impeachment of follic and temeritie in beleefe, whether men doe actually beleeue C it, or not. For which, no man may expect inward priuate reuelation, without the externall meanes of the Church, vnlesse perhaps the Stapl. Rel. Cont. 4. q. 3. a. 2. doth not onely affirme it, but [...] too, à paritate [...], [...], case of necessitie, where there is no contempt of the externall meanes. case of necessitie be excepted, when a man liues in such a Time, and Place, as excludes him from all ordinarie meanes, in which, I dare not offer to shut vp God from the soules of men, nor to tye him to those ordinarie wayes, and meanes, to which yet in great wisedome and prouidence hee hath tyed and bound all mankind.
Priuate Reuelation then hath nothing ordinarily to doe, to D make the Obiect credible in this, That Scripture is the Word of God, or in any other Article. For the Question is of such outward and euident meanes, as other men may take notice of, as well as our selues. By which, if there arise any doubting, or infirmitie in the Faith, others may strengthen vs, or we affoord meanes to support them: whereas the Quid cum singulis agitur Deus, scit qui agit, & ipsi cum quibus [...] sciunt. Quid autem agatur cum genere humano, per historiam commendari voluit, & per [...]. S. Aug. L. de Vera Relig. c. 25. Testimonie of the Spirit, and all priuate Reuelation, is within, nor felt nor seene of any, but him that hath it; so that hence can be drawne no proofe to others. Miracles are not sufficient alone to prooue it, [...] both E they and the Reuelation too, agree with the Rule of Scripture, which is now an vnalterable Rule by Gal. 1. 8. Man, or Angell.
4. The last, which giues Reason leaue to come in, and prooue what it can, may not iustly be denyed by any reasonable man. For though Reason, without Grace, cannot see the way [Page 21] to Heauen, nor beleeue this Booke, in which God hath written A the way; yet Grace is neuer placed but in a reasonable creature, and prooues by the verie seat which it hath taken vp, that the end it hath, is to be spirituall eye-water, to make Reason see what by Animalis homo non percipit. 1. Cor. 2. 14. Nature onely it cannot, but neuer to blemish Reason in that which it can comprehend. Now the vse of Reason is verie generall; and man, doe what he can, is still apt to search and seeke for a Reason why he will beleeue, though after he once beleeues, his Faith growes stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge: and great reason for this, because it goes higher than eyther of the other can in this life. B
In this particular, the Bookes called the Scripture, are commonly and constantly reputed to be the Word of God, and so infallible Veritie to the least Point of them. Doth any man doubt this? The World cannot keepe him from going to weigh it at the Ballance of Reason, whether it be the Word of God, or not. To the same Weights, he brings the Tradition of the Church, the inward motiues in Scripture it selfe, all Testimonies within, which seeme to beare witnesse to it; and in all this, there's no harme: the danger is, when a man will vse no other Scale but Reason; for the Word of God, and the Booke containing C it, refuse not to be weighed by Si [...] Rationi & veritat. [...] videntur, in precio habete, &c. de Mysterijs Religionis [...]. Martyr. Apol. 2. [...] si [...] Rationis, &c. Tertull. li de [...], c. 18. Rationabile est [...] Deum esse Autorē Scripturae. Henr. a Gand. Sum. q 9. q. 3. Reason: But the Scale is not large enough to containe, nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue and [...] force of either. Reason then can giue no supernaturall ground, into which a man may resolue his Faith, That Scripture is the Word of God infallibly; yet Reason can goe so high, as it can prooue that Christian Religion, which rests vpon the Authoritie of this Booke, stands vpon surer grounds of Nature, Reason, common Equitie, and Iustice, than any thing in the World, which any Infidell, or meere Naturallist, hath done, doth, or can adhere vnto, against it, in that which he makes, accounts, or D assumes, as Religion to himselfe. The antient Fathers relyed vpon the Scriptures, no Christians more; and hauing to doe with Philosophers (men verie well seene in all the subtleties which naturall Reason could teach, or learne) they were often put to it, and did as often make it good, That they had sufficient warrant to relye as much as they did vpon Scripture. In all which Disputes, because they were to deale with Infidels, they did labour to make good the Authoritie of the Booke of God by such arguments, as vnbeleeuers themselues could not but thinke reasonable, if they [...] them with indifferencie. E Hook. lib 3. §. 8. Si Plato ipse [...], & me [...] non [...], &c. S. Aug. de vera [...]. c. 3. [...] Ratio potest progredi à [...] ad inuisibilia, &c. Ibid. c. 29. And it is not altogether impossible to prooue it, euen by Reason, a Truth infallible, or else to make them denie some apparant Principle of their owne. For example: It is an apparant Principle, and with them, That God, or the absolute prime Agent, cannot be forced [Page 22] out of any possession: for if hee could be forced by another greater, A he were neither Prince, nor Absolute, nor Si vim spectes, Deus valentissimus est. Aristot. de Mundo, c. 7. Don. ini & moderatores omnium. Cic. 2. de Leg. God, in their owne Theologie. Now they must graunt, That that God, and Christ, which the Scripture teaches, and wee beleeue, is the onely true God, and no other with him, and so denie the Deitie which they worshipped, or else denie their owne Principle about the Deitie, That God cannot be commanded, and forced out of possession: Ipse Saturnus, & [...], & Iupiter, & quicquid [...] colitis, victi dolore quod sunt [...]. Nec vtique in turpitudinē sui nonnullis praesertim vestrorū assistentib' ment untur. Ipsis testib' esse eos Daemones de se verum confitentib' credite. [...] enim per [...] verum & solum inuiti &c. Arnob. 8. contra Gent. For their Gods, Saturne, and Serapis, and Iupiter himselfe, haue beene adiured by the name of the true and onely God, and haue beene forced out of the bodies they possessed, and confessed themselues to be foule and seducing Deuils. And their confession was to be supposed B true, in point of Reason: for they that were adored as Gods, would neuer belie themselues into Deuils, to their owne reproach, especially in the presence of them that worshipped them, were they not forced. This, many of the vnbeleeuers saw; therefore they could not (in verie force of Reason) but they must either denie their God, or denie their Principle in Nature. Their long Custome would not forsake their God, and their Reason could not forget their Principle. If Reason therefore might iudge among them, they could not worship any thing that was vnder command. And if it be reasonable to doe and beleeue this, then why not reasonable also C to beleeue that the Scripture is his Word, giuen to teach himselfe and Christ, since there they find Christ S. Matth. 12.22. doing that, and S. Matth. 16.17. giuing power to doe it after, which themselues saw executed vpon their Deuill Gods?
Besides, whereas all other written Lawes haue scarce had the honour to be duly obserued, or constantly allowed worthie approbation in the particular places where they haue beene established for Lawes; this Law of Christ, and this Canon of Scripture, the container of it, is or hath beene receiued in almost Si Libri quoquo modo se habent, sancti tamen Diuinarum rerum pleni propè totius generis humani confessione diffamantur, &c. S. Aug. de Vtil. Cred. c. 7. Scriptura summa dispositione prouidentiae super omnes omnium gentium literas, omnia sibi genera ingeniorum humanorum Diuina Excellens authoritate subiecit. S. Aug. 11. de Ciuit. Dei, c. 1. At in omni Orbe terrarum in omni Graecia & vniuersis Nationibus, innumeri sunt, & immensi qui relictis Patrijs, Legibus, &c. ad obseruantiam Mosis & Christi, &c. Origen. 4. [...], cap. 1. all Nations vnder Heauen: And wheresoeuer D it hath beene receiued, it hath beene both approoued for vnchangeable Good, and beleeued for infallible Veritie. This persuasion could not haue beene wrought in men of all sorts, but by working vpon their Reason, vnlesse wee shall thinke all the World vnreasonable, that receiued it. And certainely, God did not giue this admirable facultie of Reasoning to the Soule of man, for any cause more prime than this, to discouer, or at least to iudge and allow of the E way to himselfe, when and howsoeuer it should be discouered.
One great thing that troubled Rationall men, was that which stumbled the Manichee (an Heresie it was, but more than halfe [Page 23] Pagan) namely, That somewhat must be beleeued, before much could A be knowne. Wise men vse not to beleeue, but what they know: And the Manichee Irridere in Catholicae fidei disciplina, quod iuberétur homines credere non autem, &c. S. Aug. 1. [...]. c. 14. scorned the Orthodox Christian, as light of beleefe, promising to lead no Disciple after him, but vpon euident knowledge. This stumbles many; but yet the Principle, That somewhat must be beleeued, before much can be knowne, stands firme in Reason still: For if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be prooued; if Reason be able to see this, and confesse it, if almost all Artists haue granted it, Who can iustly denie that to Diuinitie, A Science of the highest Obiect, God himselfe; which he easily and reasonably grants to inferior B Sciences, which are more within his [...] And as all Sciences suppose some Principles, without proouing; so haue they almost all, some Text, some Authoritie, vpon which they relye in some measure: and it is Reason they should. For though these make not their Texts infallible, as Diuinitie doth; yet full consent, and prudent examination, and long continuance, haue woon reputation to them, and settled reputation vpon them, verie deseruedly. For were these Texts more void of Truth than they are, yet it were fit to vphold their credit, that Nouices and young beginners in a Science, which are not yet able to C worke strongly vpon Reason, nor Reason vpon them, may haue Authoritie to beleeue, till they can learne to conclude from Principles, and so to know. Is this also reasonable in other Sciences, and shall it not be so in Theologie, to haue a Text, a Scripture, a Rule, which Nouices may be taught first to beleeue, that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things, which out of this rich Principle and And therefore S. Aug. 2. de Doctr. Christ. c. 8. would haue men make thē selues persect in reading the letter of the Scripture, [...] before they vnderstood it. Eas notas habeat, etsi nondum intellectu, tamé [...] duntaxat; No question, but to make thē readie, against they vnderstood it. Treasure are deduceable? I yet see not, how right Reason can denie these grounds; and if it cannot, then a meere naturall man may be thus farre conuinced, That the Text of God is a verie credible Text. D
Well, these are the foure, by most of which, men offer to prooue the Scripture to be the Word of God, as by a Diuine and infallible warrant; and it seemes no one of these doth it. The Tradition of the present Church is too weake, because that is not absolutely Diuine: The Light which is in Scripture it selfe, is not bright enough, it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe. The Testimonie of the Holy Ghost, that is most infallible, but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question, which is not, how, or by what meanes we beleeue, but how the Scripture may be proposed as a credible Obiect, [...] for [...]. E And for Reason, no man expects, that that should [...] it; it doth seruice enough, if it enable vs to disprooue that which misguided men conceiue against it. If none of these then be an absolute and sufficient meanes to prooue it, eyther wee [Page 24] must find out another, or see what can be more wrought out A of these.
For the Tradition of the Church then, certaine it is, we must distinguish the Church, before wee can iudge right of the validitie of the Tradition. For if the speech be of the Prime Christian Church, the Apostles, Disciples, and such as had immediate Reuelation from Heauen; no question, but the Voice and Tradition of this Church is Diuine, not aliquo modo, in a sort, but simply; and the Word of God from them, is of like validitie, written or deliuered. And against this Tradition (of which kind this, That the Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God, is the B most generall and vniforme) the Church of England neuer excepted. And then here's the Voyce of God, of which no Christian may doubt, to confirme his Word. For the Apostles had their Authoritie from Christ, and they prooued that they had it by apparant Miracles, which were beyond exception. And when S. Augustine L. 1. contr. Epis. Fund. c. 5. Ego vero non crederē Euangelio, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae cō moueret autoritas. said, I would not beleeue the Gospell, vnlesse the Authoritie of the Catholike Church mooued me (whichplace you vrged at the Conference, though you are now content to slide by it) some of your ownewill not endure, should be vnderstood, saue [...], Dial. p. 1. l. 1. c. 4. [...] solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum. of the Church in the time of the Apostles C onely; and Biel, Lect. 22. in C. Missae. A tempore Christi & Apostolorum, &c. And so doth S. Aug. take, Eccles cont. Fund. some, of the Church in generall, not [...] but sure to include Christ and his Apostles, the [...] is there.
But this will not serue your turne. The Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitiue. But the contrarie to this is prooued before, because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Diuine. To what end then serues any Tradition of the present Church? To what? Why to a very good end. For [...] it serues by a full consent to worke vpon the minds of vnbeleeuers; to mooue them to reade and to D confider, the Scripture (which they heare by so many wise, learned, and [...] men) as of no meaner esteeme than the [...] of God. It [...] among Nouices, Weakelings, and Doubters in the Faith, to instruct and confirme them, till they may acquaint themselues with, and vnderstand the Scripture, which the Church deliuers as the Word of God. And thus againe some of your owne vnderstand the fore cited place of S. Augustine, [...] the Gospell, &c. Siue Infideles, siue in fide Nouitij. Can. loc. lib. 2. cap. 8. [...] omnino nescienti Scripturam. Stap. Relect. cont. 4. q. 1. A. 3. For he speakes it eyther of [...], or [...] in the Faith, or else of such as were in [...] [...]. You (as the B. tells me) at the Conference E (though you [...] it here) would needs haue it, that S. Augustine [...] of the Faithfull, which I cannot yet thinke: For hee speakes to the [...], and they had a great part of the [...] in them. And the words immediately before those, are, [Page 25] If thou shouldst find one, Qui Euangelio nondum credit, which did A not yet beleeue the Gospell, what wouldst thou doe to make him beleeue? Et ibid. Quibus obtemperaui dicē tibus Credite Euangelio. Therefore he speaks of himselfe when he did not beleeue. Ego vero non, Truly I would not, &c. So to these two ends it serues, and there need be no question betweene vs. But then euerie thing that is the first Inducer to beleeue, is not by and by either the principall Motiue, or the chiefe and last Obiect of Beleefe, vpon which a man may rest his Faith. The first knowledge that helpes to open a mans vnderstanding, and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a truth, and make it euident, is his Grammar: but when he hath made a Demonstration, he resolues the knowledge of his Conclusion, not into his Grammar Rules, but B into the immediate Principles out of which it is deduced. So in this particular, a man is probably led by the Authoritie of the present Church, as by the first informing, inducing, persuading meanes, to beleeue the Scripture to be the Wordof God: but when hee hath studied, considered, and compared this Word with it selfe, and with other Writings, with the helpe of ordinarie Grace, and a mind morally induced, and reasonably persuaded by the voyce of the Church; the Scripture then giues greater and higher reasons of credibilitie to it selfe, than Tradition alone could giue. And then he that beleeues, resolues his C last and full assent, That Scripture is Diuine Authoritie, into internall Arguments, found in the Letter of it selfe, though found by the helpe and direction of Tradition without, and Grace within. And the Resolution that is rightly grounded, may not endure to pitch and rest it selfe vpon the helpes, but vpon that Diuine Light, which the Scripture no question hath in it selfe, but is not kindled, till these helpes come: Thy Word is a Light Psal. 119.105. Sanctarum Scripturarum Lumen. S. Aug. L. de Vera Relig. c. 7. Quid Lucem Scripturarum vanis vmbris? &c. S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl. Cathol. c. 35.; so Dauid. A Light? therefore it is as much, manifestatiuum sui as alterius, a manifestation to it selfe, as to other things which it shewes: but still, not till the Candle be lighted; not till there D hath beene a preparing instruction, what Light it is. Children call the Sunne and Moone, Candles; Gods Candles: They see the Light as well as men, but cannot distinguish betweene them, till some Tradition, and Education, hath informed their Reason. And 1. Cor. 2.14. animalis homo, the naturall man sees some Light of Morall counsaile and instruction in Scripture, as well as Beleeuers; but he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-Light, and cannot distinguish betweene the Suune, and twelue to the pound, till Tradition of the Church, and Gods Grace put to it, haue cleared his vnderstanding. So Tradition of E the present Church, is the first motiue to Beleefe: but the Beleefe it selfe, That the Scripture is the Word of God, rests Orig. 4. [...], c. 1. went this way, yet was he a great deale neerer the prime Tradition, than wee are: for being to prooue, that the Scriptures were inspired from God, be saith, De hoc assignabimus ex ipsis diuinis Scripturis, quae nos cōpetenter mouerint, &c. vpon the Scripture, when a man finds it to answere and exceed all that [Page 26] which the Church gaue in Testimonie. And as in the voyce of A the Primitiue and Apostolicall Church there was Principaliter tamen (etiam & hic) credimus propter Deum non Apostolos, &c. [...]. à Gand. Sum. A. 9. q. 3. Now, if where the Apostles themselues spake, vltimata resolutio fidei, was in Deum, not in ipsos per [...], much more shall it be in [...], than in praesentem Ecclesiam; and into the writings of the Apostles, than into the words of their Successors, made vp into a Tradition. simply Diuine Authoritie, deliuering the Scripture as Gods Word; so, after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule, the voice of God is plainely heard in Scripture it selfe. And then here's double Authoritie, and both Diuine, that confirmes Scripture to be the Word of God, Tradition of the Apostles deliuering it, and the internall worth and argument in the Scripture, obuious to a soule prepared by the present Churches Tradition, and Gods grace. B
The Difficulties which are pretended against this, are not many, and they will easily vanish.
1. First, you pretend wee goe to priuate Reuelations for Light, to know Scripture: No, wee doe not; you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question: and wee goe to the Tradition of the present Church, and by it as well as you. Here wee differ; wee vse this as the first Motiue, not as the last Resolution of our Faith; wee resolue onely into Calu. Instit. 1. c. 5. §. 2. Christiana Ecclesia Prophetarum, Scriptis, & Apostolorum praedicatione initio fundata fuit, vbicun (que) reperietur ea Doctrina, &c. prime Tradition Apostolicall, and Scripture it selfe.
2. Secondly, you pretend wee doe not, nor cannot know the C prime Apostolicall Tradition, but by the Tradition of the present Church; and that therefore if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods vnwritten Word, and Diuine, we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture, by a Diuine Authoritie. First, suppose I could not know the prime Tradition to be Diuine, but by the present, yet it doth not follow, that then I cannot know Scripture to be Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie, because Diuine Tradition is not the sole and onely meanes to prooue it. For suppose I had not, nor could haue full assurance of Apostolicall Tradition Diuine, yet the morall persuasion, D reason, and force of the present Church is ground enough to mooue any reasonable man, that it is fit hee should reade the Scripture, and esteeme very reuerently and highly of it. And this once done, the Scripture hath then In, and Home Arguments enough to put a soule, that hath but ordinarie Grace, out of doubt, That Scripture is the Word of God, infallible and Diuine. Secondly, Next, the present Tradition, though not absolutely Diuine, yet by the helpe of Diuine Arguments, internall to the Scripture, is able to prooue the very prime Tradition: for so long as the present agrees both with the prime E Tradition, and with the Scripture it selfe, deliuered by it (as in this it is found and agreed vpon, that it doth, and Hell it selfe is not able to belch out a good Argument against it) it is a sufficient testimonie of the Scriptures Authoritie; not by or of it selfe, [Page 27] because not simply Diuine, but by the prime Tradition and A Scripture vpon which it grounds, while it deliuers. And both these are absolutely Diuine.
3. Thirdly, you pretend, that wee make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be knowne Lumine suo, by the Light and Testimonie which it hath in, and giues to it selfe. Against this, you giue reason and proofe from our selues. Your reason is, If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it selfe, then euerie man that can and doth but reade it, may know it presently to be the Diuine Word of God; which we see by dayly experience, men neither doe nor can. First, it is not absolutely, nor vniuersally B true, There is sufficient Light; therefore euerie man may see it. Blind men are men, and cannot see it; and 1. Cor. 2.14. sensuall men, in the Apostles iudgement, are such: Nor may wee denie and put out this Light, as insufficient, because blind Eyes cannot, and peruerse Eyes will not see it, no more than we may denie meat to be sufficient for nourishment, though men that are heart-sicke, cannot eate it. Next, wee doe not say, That there is such a full Light in Scripture, as that euerie man vpon the first sight must yeeld to it; such Light as is found in prime Principles, Euerie whole is greater than a part of the same, and C this, The same thing cannot be, and not be, at the same time, and in the same respect. These carrie a naturall Light with them, and euident: for they are no sooner vnderstood, than fully knowne, to the conuincing of mans vnderstanding, and so they are the beginning of knowledge; which, where it is perfect, dwells in full Light: but such a full Light wee doe neyther say is, nor require to be in Scripture; and if any particular man doe, let him answere for himselfe. The Question is, onely of such a Light in Scripture, as is of force to breed Faith, that it is the Word of God; not to make a perfect Knowledge. Now D Faith, of whatsoeuer it is, this or other Principle, it is an Euidence [...]. Heb. 11. 1., as well as a Knowledge, and a Henr. à Gand. sum. A. 10. q. 2. firmer and surer Euidence than any Knowledge can haue, because it rests vpon Diuine Authoritie, which cannot deceiue; whereas Knowledge, or at least he that thinkes he knowes, is not euer certaine, in deductions from Principles. I say firmer Euidence, but not so cleare: For it is of Heb. 11.1. things not seene, in regard of the Obiect; and in regard of the Subiect that sees, it is in 1. Cor. 13.12. aenigmate, in a Glasse, or darke speaking. Now God E doth not require a full demonstratiue Knowledge in vs, that the Scripture is his Word, and therefore in his prouidence kindled in it no Light for that; but he requires our Faith of it, and such a certaine Demonstration, as may fit that. And for [Page 28] that, he hath left A sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting, where the soule is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church; vnlesse you be of Bellarmine's opinion Lib. 3 de Eccl. c. 14. Credere [...] esse Diuinas Scripturas non est omninò necessarium ad salutem. I will not breake my discourse, to [...] this speech of Bellarmine; it is bad enough in the best sense that fauour it selfe can [...] it. For if he [...] by omninò, that it is not altogether, or simply necessarie to beleeue there is Diuine Scripture, and a written Word of God; that's false, that being granted which is among all Christians, That there is a Scripture: And God would [...] haue giuen a supernaturall vnnecessarie thing. And if he meanes by omninò, that it is not in any wise necessarie, then it is sensibly false: For the greatest vpholders of Tradition that euer were, made the Scripture verie necessarie in all the [...] of the Church. So it was necessarie, because it was giuen; and giuen, because God thought it necessarie. Besides, vpon Roman Grounds (if I haue skill enough to stand firme vpon them) this I thinke will follow: That which the Tradition of the present Church deliuers, as necessarie to [...], [...] omninò, necessarie to saluation: But that there are Diuine Scriptures, the Tradition of the present Church deliuers as necessarie to beleeue: therefore, to beleeue there are Diuine Scriptures, is omninò (be the [...] of the word what it can) necessarie to saluation. So Bellarmine is foule, and vnable to stand vpon his owne ground., B That to beleeue there are any Diuine Scriptures, is not omninò, necessarie to saluation.
The Authoritie which you pretend, is out of Lib. 1. §. 14. Hooker: Of things necessarie, the verie chiefest is to know, what Bookes wee are bound to esteeme holy; which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach. Of this, Protest. Apol. Tract. 1. §. 10. n. 3. Brierly (the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle, and yet seeme well read) tells vs, That Lib. 2. §. 4. Hooker giues a verie sensible Demonstration: It is not the Word of God, which doth or possibly can assure vs, that we doe well to C thinke it is his Word: for if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimonie to all, yet still that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest, would require another to giue credit vnto it. Nor could wee euer come to any pause, to rest our assurance this way: so that vnlesse, beside Scripture, there were something that might assure, &c. And Lib. 2. §. 7. & lib. 3. § 8. this he acknowledgeth (saith Brierly) is the Authoritie of Gods Church. Certainely, Hooker giues a true and a sensible Demonstration; but Brierly wants fidelitie and integritie, in citing him: For in the first place, Hookers speech is, Scripture it selfe cannot teach this; nor can the Truth say, that Scripture it selfe can. It must D needs ordinarily haue Tradition, to prepare the mind of a man to receiue it. And in the next, where hee speakes so sensibly, That Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe, nor one part of it to another; that is grounded vpon Nature, which admits no created thing to be witnesse to it selfe; and is acknowledged by our Sauiour, S. Ioh. 5. 31. De seipso homine loquitur, nam aliter S. Ioh. 8.13. If I beare witnesse to my selfe, my witnesse is not true, i. not of force to be reasonably accepted for Truth. But then it is more than manifest, that Hooker deliuers his Demonstration of Scripture alone. For if Scripture hath another proofe E to vsher it, and lead it in, then no question it can both prooue and approoue it selfe. His words are, So that vnlesse, besides Scripture, there be &c. Besides Scripture; therefore he excludes not Scripture, but calls for another proofe to lead it in, namely, [Page 29] Tradition, which no man that hath braines about him, denyes. A In the two other places, Brierly falsifies shamefully: for folding vp all that Hooker sayes, in these words, This (other meanes to assure vs, besides Scripture) is the Authoritie of Gods Church, he wrinkles that worthie Author desperately, and shrinkes vp his meaning. In the former place abused by Brierly, no man can set a better state of the question betweene Scripture and Tradition, than Hooker doth: Lib. 2. §. 7. His words are these, The Scripture is the ground of our Beleefe; The Authoritie of man (that is the name he giues to Tradition) is the Key which opens the doore of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture. I aske now, when a B man is [...], and hath viewed a house, and by viewing, likes it, and vpon liking, resolues vnchangeably to dwell there; doth he set vp his resolution vpon the Key that let him in? No sure; but vpon the goodnesse and commodiousnesse which he sees in the house. And this is all the difference (that I know) betweene vs in this Point: In which, doe you grant (as yee ought to doe) that wee resolue our Faith into Scripture, as the Ground, and wee will neuer denie, that Tradition is the Key that lets vs in. In the latter place, Hooker is as plaine, as constant to himselfe, and Truth: Lib. 3. §. 8. His words are, The first C outward motiue, leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture, is the Authoritie of Gods Church, &c. But afterwards, the more we bestow our labour in reading or learning the Mysteries thereof, the more we find, that the thing it selfe doth answer our receiued opinion concerning it: so that the former inducement preuailing somewhat with vs before, doth now much more preuaile, when the verie thing hath ministred further reason. Here then againe, in his iudgement, is Tradition the first inducement; but the farther Reason and Ground, is the Scripture: and resolution of Faith euer settles vpon the farthest Reason it can, not vpon the first inducement. So that the D state of this Question is firme and plaine enough, to him that will not shut his eyes.
The last thing I shall trouble you with, is, That this method and manner of proouing Scripture to be the Word of God, is the same which the antient Church euer held, namely, Tradition, or Ecclesiasticall Authoritie first, and then, internall Arguments from the Scripture it selfe. The first Church of Christ, the Apostles themselues, had their warrant from Nec ijs principaliter credendum [...] propter authoritatem Christi, & Dei in Christo. Heur. [...] Gand. sum. a. 9. q. 3. Christ; their Tradition was euerie way Diuine, both in the thing they deliuered, E and in the manner of their witnessing it. But in aftertimes of the Church, men prooue Scripture to be the Word of God by internall Arguments, as the chiefe thing vpon which they resolue, though Tradition be the first that mooues them [Page 30] to it. This way the Church went in S. Augustine's Lib. 13. contr. Faust. c. 5. Probat per internum argumentum impletionem Prophetarum. Scriptura quae fidē suā rebus ipsis probat, quae per temporum successiones haec impleri, &c. Et Hen. à Gand. sum. a. 9. q. 3. citat S. Aug. L. de Vera Relig. in quo L. haec quatuor simul posita non leguntur, sed adimplent scopum [...]. time: A He was no enemie to Church-Tradition; yet when he would prooue, that the Author of the Scripture (and so of the whole knowledge of Diuinitie, as it is supernaturall) is Deus in Christo, God in Christ, he takes this as the all-sufficient way, and giues foure proofes, all internall to the Scripture: first, The Miracles; secondly, That there is nothing carnall in the Doctrine; thirdly, That there hath beene such performance of it; fourthly, That by such a Doctrine of Humilitie, the whole World almost hath beene conuerted. And whereas ad muniendam fidem, for the defending of the Faith, and keeping it entire, there are two things requisite, B Scripture, and Church-Tradition; Duplici modo munire fidem, &c. primò diuinae Legis [...], tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione, contr. Haer. cap. 1. Vincent. Lirinensis places Authoritie of Scriptures first, and then Tradition. And since it is apparant, that Tradition is first in order of Time, it must necessarily follow, that Scripture is first, in order of Nature; that is the chiefe, vpon which Faith rests and resolues it selfe: And your owne Schoole confesses, this was the way euer. The woman of S. Ioh. 4. Samaria is a knowne resemblance, but allowed by your selues: For Henr. à Gand. sum. a. 10. q. 1. Sic quotidie apud illos qui foris sunt intrat Christus per [...], i. Ecclesiam & eredunt per istam famā &c. in Glos. in S. Ioh. cap. 4. quotidie, dayly with them that are without, Christ enters by the Woman, that is, the Church, and they beleeue by that fame which she giues, &c. But when they come to heare Christ himselfe, C they beleeue his words, before the words of the woman. For when they haue once found Christ, Jbid. Plus vebis Chrsti in Scriptura credit, quam Ecclesiae testificanti. Quia propter illam iam credit Ecclesiae, & si ipsa quidem [...] Scripturae diceret, ipsi non crederet, &c. they doe more beleeue his words in Scripture, than they doe the Church which testifies of him, because then propterillam, for the Scripture they beleeue the Church: and if the Church should speake contrarie to the Scripture, they would not beleeue it. Thus the Schoole taught then, and thus the Glosse commented then. And when men haue tyred themselues, hither they must come. The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures, euen to this knowledge of them, that they are the Word of God, is Tradition of the Church: but when they are in, In sacra Scriptura ipse immediatè loquitur fidelib'. Ibid. they D heare Christ himselfe immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithfull: S. Ioh. 10.4. And his Sheepe doe not onely heare, but know his voyce.
To conclude then, wee haue a double Diuine Testimonie, altogether infallible, to confirme vnto vs, that Scripture is the Word of God: The first, is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselues, who deliuered immediately to the World, the Word of Christ: the other, the Scripture it selfe; but after it hath receiued this Testimonie. And E into these, wee doe and may safely resolue our Faith. Quod autem [...] posterioribus circa quos non apparent [...] est, [...] quae illi in [...] Quae [...] medios [...] nullo fuisse [...] ex consensione concordi [...] succedentium vsque ad tempora [...]. Henr. à Gand. [...]. A. [...]. q. 3. Et [...] argumenta, quae [...] ex antedicto [...] S. Aug. [...] Dei [...], sufficientia debent esse indicia, non solum pro tempore Ecclesiae [...], sed etiam pro [...] Ecclesiae decursu vsque in [...], [...] de caetero non [...], &c. [...]. & Calu. Lib. 1. Instit. cap. 5. §. 2. [...] As for the Tradition of after [Page 31] ages, in and about whom Miracles and Diuine power were not so A euident, we beleeue them, because they doe not preach other things than those former (the Apostles) left in scriptis certissimis, in most certaine Scripture. And it appeares by men in the middle ages, that these Writings were vitiated in nothing, by the concordant consent in them of all succeedors, to our owne time.
And now, by this time, it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers, which seeme to speake differently in no few places, both one from another, and the same from themselues, touching Scripture, and Tradition; and that as well in this Point, to prooue Scripture to be the Word of God, as for concordant B exposition of Scripture in all things else. When therefore the Fathers say, Scripturas habemus ex Traditione. S. Cyril. Hier. Catech. 4. Multa quae non inueniuntur in Literis Apostolorum &c. non nisi ab illis tradita & commēdata creduntur. S. Aug. 2. [...] Baptis. contr. Donat. c. 7. Wee haue the Scripture by Tradition, or the like, either they meane the Tradition of the Apostles themselues deliuering it; and there, when it is knowne, we may resolue our Faith: or if they speake of the present Church, then they meane, that the Tradition of it is that by which wee first receiue the Scripture, as by an according meanes to the prime Tradition: But because it is not simply Diuine, wee resolue not our Faith into it, nor settle our Faith vpon it, till it resolue it selfe into the prime Tradition of the Apostles, or the Scripture, or both, and C there we rest with it. And you cannot shew an ordinarie consent of Fathers: nay, Can you, or any of your Quarter, shew me any one Father of the Church, Greeke or Latine, that euer said, Wee are to resolue our Faith, that Scripture is the Word of God, into the Tradition of the present Church? And againe, when they say wee are to relye vpon Scripture Non aliunde Scientia Coelestium. S. Hilar. lib. 4. de Trin. Si Angelus de Coelo annunciauerit praeterquam quod in Scripturis, &c. S. Aug. l. 3. contr. [...]. c. 6. onely, they are neuer to be vnderstood with exclusion of Tradition, in what causes soeuer it may be had, Quum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon sibique ad omnia satis [...] sufficiat, &c. Vinc. Lir. cont. Haer. c. 2. And if it be sibi ad omnia, then to this, To prooue it selfe, at least aster Tradition hath prepared vs to receiue it. Not but that the D Scripture is abundantly sufficient to it selfe for all things, but because it is deepe, and may be drawne into different senses.
I haue said thus much vpon this great occasion, because this Argument is so much pressed, without due respect to Scripture, I will not say, to the weakening our beleefe of it. Now out of this, I will weigh the B. his Answer, and your Exception taken against it.
The B. said, That the Bookes of Scripture are Principles E to be supposed, and needed not to be prooued.
Why, but did the B. say, That this Principle (The Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God) is to be supposed, as needing [Page 32] no proofe at all to a naturall man? or to a man newly entring A vpon the Faith? yea, or perhaps to a doubter, or weakeling in the Faith? Can you thinke the B. so weake? It seemes you doe. But sure hee knowes, that there is a great deale of difference betweene Ethnicks that denie and deride the Scripture, and men that are borne in the Church:The first haue a farther way about, to this Principle; the other, in their very Christian education sucke in this Principle, and are taught so soone as they are apt to learne it, That the Bookes commonly called the Bible, or Scripture, are the Word of God Dixi sicut ei congruebat ad qué Scribebam, &c. S. Aug. 1. Retrac. c. 13.. The B. dealt with you as with a Christian, though in Error while you call Catholike. The B words before spoken by the B. were, That the Scripture onely, not any vnwritten Tradition, was the Foundation of Faith. The Question betweene vs and you is, Whether the Scripture doe containe all such necessarie things of Faith? Now in this Question, as in all Nature and Art, the Subiect, the Scripture is and must be supposed; the Quaere betweene the Romane Catholikes and the Church of England being onely of the Predicate, the thing vttered of it, namely, Whether it containe all Fundamentalls of Faith, all necessaries for Saluation, within it? Now since the Question proposed, in verie forme of Art prooues not, but supposes C the subiect, I thinke the B. gaue a satisfying answere, That to you and him, and in this Question, Scripture was a supposed Principle, and needed no proofe. And I must tell you, that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect continent, it is against all Art, yea and Equitie too, in reasoning, to call for a proofe of that here, which must goe vnauoidably supposed in this Question. De subiecto enim quaeritur semper, non subiectum ipsum quam [...] in propositione. And if any man will [...] familiar with Impietie, to question it, it must be tryed in a preceding Question and Dispute by it selfe. Yet here not you onely, but Lib 4. de verb. Dei, cap. 4. Bellarmine, and others, run quite out of the way, to snatch at aduantage. D
Against this, I read what I had formerly written in my Replie against M r Iohn White: wherein I plainely shewed, that this answere was not good, and that no other answere could be made, but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten, to assure vs of this Point.
Indeed here you read out of a Booke (which you called your owne) a large discourse vpon this Argument: but some E bodie told me the B. vntyed the Knot of the Argument, and set you to your Booke againe. Besides, you doe a great deale of wrong to M r Hooker Lib. 3. §. 8. and the B. that because they call it a supposed or presumed Principle among Christians, you should [Page 33] fall by and by into such a Metaphysicall discourse as the B. A tells me you did, to prooue, That that which is praecognitum, foreknowne in Science, must be of such Light, that it must be knowne of and by it selfe alone; and that the Scripture cannot be so knowne to be the Word of God.
Well, I will not now enter into that discourse more than I haue, how farre the Beame, which is verie glorious (especially in some parts of Scripture) giues Light to prooue it selfe. You see neither Hooker, nor the B. nor the Church of England (for ought I know) leaue the Scripture alone, to manifest it selfe by the Light which it hath in it selfe, but when the present B Church hath prepared and led the way, like a preparing Morning-Light to Sunne-shine; and then indeed wee settle not, but in that Light. Nor will I make needlesse enquirie, how farre, or in what manner a praecognitum, or supposed Principle in any Science, may be prooued in a higher, to which that is subordinate; or accepted in a Prime: nor how it may in Diuinitie, where prae as well as post cognita; things fore as after-knowne, are matters and vnder the manner of Faith, and not of Science strictly: nor whether a praecognitum, a presupposed Principle in Faith, which rests vpon Diuine Authoritie, must needs haue as much C and equall Light to Naturall Reason, which prime Principles haue in Nature, while thy rest vpon Reason: Nor whether it may iustly be denyed to haue sufficient Light, be cause not equall. Your owne [...]. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. 1. colligitur inde. Schoole grants, That in vs, which are the subiects both of Faith and Knowledge, and in regard of the Euidence giuen in vnto vs, there is lesse Light, lesse Euidence in the Principles of Faith, than in the Principles of Knowledge, vpon which there can be no doubt. But I thinke the Schoole will neuer grant, that the Principles of Faith (euen this in question) haue not sufficient euidence. And you ought not to doe as you did, without any D distinction, or any limitation, denie a Praecognitum, or prime Principle in the Faith, because it answers not in all things to the prime Principles in Science, in their Light and Euidence; a thing in it selfe directly against Reason.
Well, though I doe none of this, yet I must follow you a little; for I would faine make it appeare as plainely as such a difficultie can, what wrong you doe Truth and your selfe in this case. When the Protestants therefore answere to this Argument (which, as I haue shewed, can properly haue no place in the Question betweene vs about Tradition) Hook. l. 3. §. 8. they which E grant this as a Praecognitum, and thing fore-knowne, as the B. did, were neither ignorant nor forgetfull, That things presupposed, as alreadie knowne in a Science, are of two sorts; Either they are plaine and fully manifest intheir owne Light, or they are [Page 34] prooued and granted alreadie, some former knowledge hauing made A them euident. This Principle then, The Scriptures are the Oracles of God, wee cannot say is cleare and fully manifest to all men simply, and in selfe-Light. For as is formerly said, if it were so euident, then all that heare it, reade it, and doe but vnderstand [...] tearmes, could not but presently assent vnto it, as they doe to Principles euident in themselues, which hourely experience tells vs is not so: Yet wee say, after Tradition hath beene our Introduction, the Soule that hath but ordinarie Grace added to Reason, may discerne Light sufficient to resolue our Faith, that the Sunne is there. This Principle then being not absolutely B and simply euident in it selfe, is presumed to be taught vs otherwise; and if otherwise, then it must be taught in and by some superior Science, to which Theologie is subordinate. Now men may be apt to thinke out of reuerence, That Diuinitie can haue no Science aboue it; but your owne Schoole teacheth me that it hath. Hoc modo sacra Doctrina est Scientia, quia procedit ex principijs notis lumine superioris Scientiae, quae scilicet est Scientia Dei & Beatorum. Th. p. 1. q. 1. a. 2. The sacred Doctrine of Diuinitie in this sort is a Science, because it proceeds out of Principles that are knowne by the Light of a superior Knowledge, which is the Knowledge of God and the blessed in Heauen. In this superior Science, this Principle, The Scriptures are the Oracles of God, is more than euident in full C Light. This superior Science deliuers this Principle in full reuealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles: Non creditur Deus esse Author huius [...], quia homines hoc testati sunt in quantum homines nudo Testimonio humano, sed in quantum [...] Diuina, & ita Deus ijs & sibi ipsi in eis Testimonium perhibuit. Hen. à Gand. sum. A. 9. q. 3. The infallible Light of this Principle made their Authoritie Diuine; by the same Diuine Authoritie they wrote, and deliuered the Scripture to the Church. Therefore from them immediately the Church receiued the Scripture, and that vncorrupt: And since no sufficient reason hath or can be giuen, that in any substantiall thing it hath beene corrupted, it remaines firme to vs at this day, prooued in the most supreame Science; and therefore now to be supposed (at least by all Christians) That the Scripture is the D Word of God. And therefore the B. his answere is good euen in strictnesse, That this Principle is to be supposed.
Besides, the Iewes neuer had nor can haue any other proofe, that the Old Testament is the Word of God, than wee haue of the New: For theirs was deliuered by Moses, and the Prophets; and ours was deliuered by the Apostles, which were Prophets too. The Iewes did beleeue their Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie; for so the Iewes argue themselues: S. Ioh. 9.29. We know that God spaeke with Moses; Maldon. in S. Ioh. 9. Itaque non magis errare posse eum sequentes, quā si Deum ipsum sequerentur. And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses, than they could in following God E himselfe. Now, how did the Iewes know that God spake to Moses? How? Why apparently, the same way that is before set downe: first, by Tradition. So S. Chrysostome: Hom. 57. in S. Ioh. 9. [...]. We know: Why, by whose witnesse, doe you know? By the Testimonie of oùr Ancestors. [Page 35] But he speakes not of their immediate Ancestors, but A their Prime, which were Prophets, and whose Testimonie was Diuine; into which (namely, their Writings) the Iewes did resolue their Faith. And euen that Scripture of the Old Testament was a 2. Pet. 1.19. Light, and a shining Light too: and therefore could not but be sufficient, when Tradition had gone before. And therefore, though the Iewes entred this way to their beleefe of the Scripture, yet they doe not say, S. Chrys. vbi supra. [...], &c. [...]. Audiuimus, Wee haue heard that God spake to Moses, but, Wee know it. So they resolued their Faith higher, and into a more inward Principle, than an Eare to their immediate Ancestors, and their B Tradition.
And that no other answere could be made, but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten, to assure vs of this Point.
I thinke I haue shewed, that the B. his answere is good, and that so no other answere need be made. If there were need, I make no question but another answere might be made, to assure vs of this Point, though wee did not admit of any Word of C God vnwritten. I say, to assure vs; and you expresse no more. If you had said, to assure vs by Diuine Faith, your Argument had beene the stronger. But if you speake of assurance onely in the generall, I must then tell you (and it is the great aduantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels) a man may be assured, nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiasticall and humane proofe. Men that neuer saw Rome, may be sure, and infallibly beleeue, that such a Citie there is, by Historicall and acquired Faith. And if consent of humane storie can assure me this, Why should not consent of Church-storie assure me the D other, That Christ and his Apostles deliuered this Bodie of Scripture as the Oracles of God? For Iewes, enemies to Christ, they beare witnesse to the Old Testament; and Christians, through almost all Nations Tanta hominū & temporum consensione firmatum. S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl. Cath. c. 29. Ij Libri quoquo modo se habent, sancti tamen Diuinarū rerū pleni propè totius generis humani [...] diffamātur, &c. S. Aug. de vtil. Cred. c. 7. & lib. 13. cont. Faust. c. 15., giue in euidence to both Old and New. And no Pagan, or other enemies of Christianitie, can giue such a worthie and consenting Testimonie for any Authoritie vpon which they relye, or almost for any Principle which they haue, as the Scripture hath gayned to it selfe. And as is the Testimonie which it receiues, aboue Super omnes omniū gentiū Literas. S. Aug. 11. de Ciuit. Dei, c. 1. all Writings of all Nations; so here is assurance in a great measure, without any E Diuine Authoritie, in a word written or vnwritten. A great assurance, and it is infallible too; onely then we must distinguish infallibilitie. For first, a thing may be presented as an infallible Obiect of Beleefe, when it is true, and remaines so: For Truth, [Page 36] [...] tale, as it is Truth, cannot deceiue. Secondly, a thing is A said to be infallible, when it is not onely true, and remainesso actually, but when it is of such invariable constancie, and vpon such ground, as that no degree of falsehood at any time, in any respect, can fall vpon it. Certaine it is, that by humane Authoritie, Consent, and Proofe, a man may be assured infallibly, that the Scripture is the Word of God, by an acquired habite of Faith, Cui non [...] falsum, vnder which nor error nor falsehood is: But he cannot be assured infallibly by Diuine Faith, Incertum esse non potest hos esse libros Canonicos Wald. Doct. fid. l. 2. a. 2. c. 20. Cui subesse non potest falsum, into which no falsehood can come, but by a Diuine Testimonie. This Testimonie is absolute B in the Scripture it selfe, deliuered by the Apostles for the Word of God. That which makes way for this, as Canus, Loc. l. 2. c. 8. Facit Ecclesiam causam sine qua non. an Introduction and outward motiue, is the Tradition of the present Church; but that neither simply Diuine, nor sufficient alone, into which we may resolue our Faith.
And now to come close to the particular. The time was, before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ (which I thinke no true Christian can looke vpon, but with a bleeding heart) that you and we were all of one beleefe: That beleefe was tainted, in tract and corruption of time, very deepely. C A diuision was made; yet so, that both parts held the Creed, and other common Principles of Beleefe: of these, this was one of the greatest, Inter omnes penè constat, aut certe id quod satis est, inter me & illos cum quibus nunc agitur conuenit hoc &c. Sic in alia causa cont. Manichaeos. S. Aug. l. de Mor. Eccl. Cathol. cap. 4. That the Scripture is the Word of God; for our beleefe of all things contained in it, depends vpon it. Since this diuision, there hath beene nothing done by vs to discredit this Principle: nay, we haue giuen it all honor, and ascribed vnto it more sufficiencie, euen to the containing of all things necessarie to saluation, with Vin. Lir. cont. Haer. c. 2. satis superque, enough, and more than enough; which your selues haue not done, doe not. And for begetting and settling a beleefe of this Principle, wee goe D the same way with you, and a better besides. The same way with you: because wee allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing motiue to embrace this Principle; onely wee cannot goe so farre in this way as you, to make the present Tradition alwayes an infallible Word of God: for this is to goe so farre in, till you be out of the way. For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church; it hath an end not onely to receiue vs in, but another after to let vs out into more open and richer ground. And a better way than you: Because after we are mooued, and prepared, and induced by Tradition, wee resolue our E Faith into that written Word, and God deliuering it, in which wee find the Tradition which led vs thither. And so wee are sure by Diuine Authoritie that wee are in the way, because at the end wee find the way prooued. And doe what can be [Page 37] done, you can neuer settle the Faith of man about this great A Principle, till you rise to greater assurance than the present Church alone can giue. And therefore once againe to that knowne place of S. Augustine Contr. Epist. Fund. c. 5.. The words of the Father are Nisi commoueret, Vnlesse the Authoritie of the Church mooued me: but not alone, but with other motiues; else it were not commouere, to mooue together. And the other motiues are Resoluers, though this be Leader. Now since wee goe the same way with you, so farre as you goe right, and a better way than you, where you goe wrong; wee need not admit any other Word of God, than wee doe. And this ought to remaine as a presupposed B Principle among all Christians, and not so much as come into this Question, about the sufficiencie of Scripture betweene you and vs.
From this (the Person doubting) called vs, and desiring to heare, Whether the B. would graunt the Romane Church to be the Right Church? The B. graunted, that it was. C
One occasion which mooued Tertullian to write his Booke de Praescrip. aduersus Haereticos, was, That he Pamel. in Summar. Lib. Videns disputationibus nihil aut parum profici. saw little or no profit come by Disputations. Sure the ground was the same then, and now. It was not to denie, that Disputation is an opening of the Vnderstanding, a sifting out of Truth; it was not to affirme, that any such Disquisition is in and of it selfe vnprofitable: If it had, S. Stephen Act. 6. 9. would not haue disputed with the Cyrenians, nor S. Paul with the Act. 9. 29. Grecians first, and then with the Iewes Act. 17. 17., and all Commers. No sure: it was some abuse in the Disputants, that frustrated the good of the Disputation. D And one abuse in the Disputants, is a Resolution to hold their owne, though it be by vnworthie meanes, and disparagement Debilitatur generosa indoles coniecta in argutias. Sen. Ep. 48. of Truth. The B. finds it here. For as it is true, that this Question was asked; so it is altogether false, that it was asked in this forme, or so answered. There is a great deale of difference (especially as Romanists handle the Question of the Church) betweene The Church, and A Church; and there is some, betweene a True Church, and a Right Church: which is the word you vse, but no man else that I know; I am sure, not the B. E
The Church may import in our Language, The onely true Church; and perhaps (as some of you seeme to make it) the Root and the Ground of the Catholike. This the B. neuer did, neuer meanes to graunt. A Church can imply no more, than [Page 38] that it is a member of the whole. This the B. neuer did, nor A euer will denie, if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church, he graunted also; but not a Right (as you impose vpon him:) For Ens and Verum, Being and True, are conuertible one with another; and euerie thing which hath a Being, is truly that Being which it is, in truth of substance. But this word Right is not so vsed, but is referred more properly to perfection in Conditions: And in this sense, euerie thing that hath a true and reall being, is not by and by right in the Conditions of it. A man that is most dishonest, and vnworthie the name, a verie Theefe (if you will) is a True man, in the B veritie of his essence, as he is a Creature endued with Reason; for this, none can steale from him, nor hee from himselfe, but Death: but hee is not therefore a right or an vpright man. And a Church that is exceeding corrupt, both in Manners and Doctrine, and so a dishonour to the name, is yet a True Church in the veritie of essence, as a Church is a companie of men, which professe the Faith of Christ, and are baptised into his Name: but yet it is not therefore a Right Church, eyther in Doctrine, or Manners. It may be, by this word Right, you meant cunningly to slip it in, that the B. should graunt it Orthodoxe. C This hee neuer graunted you: For Orthodoxe Christians are keepers of integritie, and followers of right things (so Saint Augustine Integritatis custodes & Recta sectantes. De vera Relig. c. 5.) of which, the Church of Rome is neyther. In this sence then no Right, that is, Orthodoxe Church at Rome.
And yet no newes, that the B. graunted the Romane Church to be a True Church: For so much, verie learned Protestants Hook. lib. 3. §. 1. Iunius, lib. de Eccles. cap. 17. Fallantur qui Ecclesiam negant quia Papatus in ea est. Reynold. Thess. 5. Negat tantum esse Catholicam, vel sanum eius membrum. Nay, the verie Anabaptists graunt it. Fr. Iohnson in his Treatise called, A Christian Plea, printed 1617. pag. 123. &c. haue acknowledged, before him; and the Truth cannot denie it. For that Church which receiues the Scripture as a Rule of Faith, D though but as a partiall and imperfect Rule; and both the Sacraments, as instrumentall Causes and Seales of Grace, though they adde more, and misuse these; yet cannot but be a True Church in essence. How it is in Manners and Doctrine, I would you would looke to it with a single eye: Si tamen bono ingenio Pietas & Pax quaedam mentis accedat, fine qua de sanctis rebus nihil prorsus intelligi potest. S. August. de vtil. Cred. cap. 18. For if Pietie and a peaceable minde be not ioyned to a good vnderstanding, nothing can be knowne in these great things. E
Further he confessed, That Protestants had made a Rent and Diuision from it.
The B. (I know from himselfe) could here be heartily [Page 39] Grauè omninò crimen, sed defensionem longinquā non [...], satis est enim negare, sicut pro Ecclesia olim. S. Aug. de vtil. Cred. c. 5. angrie, but that he hath resolued, in handling matters of A Religion, to leaue all gall out of his Inke, and makes me straine it out of mine. There is a miserable Rent in the Church, and I make no question but the best men doe most bemoane it Hanc quae respectu hominū Ecclesia dicitur obseruare eiusq, communionem [...] debemus. Calu. 4. Inst. c. 1. §. 7.: Nor is hee a Christian, that would not haue vnitie, might hee haue it with Truth. But the B. neuer said; nor thought, that the Protestants made this Rent. The cause of the Schisme, is yours; for you thrust vs from you, because wee called for Truth, and redresse of Abuses: For a Schisme must needs be theirs, whose the cause of it is. The Woe runs full out of the mouth of S. [...]. 18. 7. Christ, euer against him that giues the offence; B not against him that takes it, euer. But you haue giuen the B. iust cause, neuer to treat with you, or your like, but before a Iudge, or a Iurie.
Moreouer, hee said, hee would ingenuously acknowledge, That the Corruption of Manners in the Romish Church, was not a sufficient cause to iustifie their departing from it. C
I would the B. could say, you did as ingenuously repeat, as hee did confesse. Hee neuer said, That Corruption of Manners was not a sufficient cause to iustifie their departure. How could he say this, since he did not graunt that they did depart? There is difference betweene departure, and causelesse thrusting from you; for out of the Church, is not in your power to thrust vs: Thinke on that. And so much the B. said expressely then. That which the B. did ingenuously confesse, was this, That Corruption in Manners onely, is no sufficient cause to Modo ea quae ad Cathedram pertinent recta praecipiant. Hier. ep. 236. make a seperation in the Church: Nor is it. It is a truth agreed D on by the Fathers, and receiued by Diuines of all sorts, saue by the Cathari, to whom came the Donatist, and the Anabaptist; against which, Lib. 4. c. 1. §. 13. &c. Caluin disputes it strongly. And Saint Augustine Ep. 48. A malis piscib' corde semper & moribus seperantur, &c. Corporalem separationem in litore Maris, hoc est, in fine seculi expectat. is plaine: There are bad Fish in the Net of the Lord, from which there must be euer a seperation in heart, and in manners; but a corporall seperation must be expected at the Sea shore, that is, the end of the World. And the best Fish that are, must not teare and breake the Net, because the bad are with them. And this is as ingenuously confessed for you, as by the B. For if Corruption in Manners were a iust cause of actuall seperation of one Church E from another, in that Catholike Bodie of Christ, the Church of Rome hath giuen as great cause as any, since (as Vix vllū peccatū (solâ Haeresi exceptâ) cogitari potest, quo illa sedes turpiter maculata non fuerit, maximè ab an. 800. Relect. Cont. 1. q. 5. A. 3. Stapleton graunts) there is scarce any sinne that can be thought by man (Heresie onely excepted) with which that Sea hath not beene foulely stayned, [Page 40] especially from eight hundred yeeres after Christ. And he need not A except Heresie, into which In Can. Miss. Lect. 23. Biel grants it possible the Bishops of that Sea may fall. And In S. Luc. c. 22. L. 3. D. 24. q. 1. Stella and Almain grants it freely, that some of them did fall, and so ceased to be Heads of the Church; and left Christ (God be thanked) at that time of his Vicars Defection, to looke to his Cure himselfe.
But (saith he) beside Corruption of Manners, there were also Errors in Doctrine.
This the B. spake indeed: And can you prooue that he B spake not true in this? But the B. added (though here againe you are pleased to omit) That some of her Errors were dangerous to saluation. For it is not euerie light Error, in disputable Doctrine, and Points of curious Speculation, that can be a iust cause of seperation, in that admirable Bodie of Christ, which is his Eph. 1.23. Church; for which he gaue his Naturall Bodie to be rent and torne vpon the Crosse, that this Mysticall Bodie of his might be One. And S. Augustine Ep. 50. inferres vpon it, That he is no way partaker of Diuine Charitie, that is an enemie to this Vnitie. Now what Errors in Doctrine may giue iust cause C of seperation in this Bodie, were it neuer so easie to determine (as I thinke it is most difficult) I would not venture to set it downe, least in these times of Discord I might be thought to open a Doore for Schisme; which I will neuer doe, vnlesse it be to let it out. But that there are Errors in Doctrine, and some of them such as endanger saluation, in the Church of Rome, is euident to them that will not shut their eyes: The proofe whereof, runs through the particular Points that are betweene vs; and so it is too long for this discourse, which is growne too bigge alreadie. D
Which when the generall Church would not reforme, it was lawfull for particular Churches to reforme themselues. I asked Quo Iudice, Did this appeare to be so?
Is it then such a strange thing, that a particular Church may reforme it selfe, if the generall will not? I had thought, and doe so still, That in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine, it is lawfull for the Church since Christ, to E doe as the Church before Christ did, and might doe. The Church before Christ, consisted of Iewes and Proselytes: this Church came to haue a seperation, vpon a most vngodly Policie of 3. Reg. 12.27. [...], so that it neuer pieced together againe. [Page 41] To a Common Councell, to reforme all, they would not A come. Was it not lawfull for Iudah to reforme her selfe, when Israel would not ioyne? Sure it was, or else the Prophet deceiues me, that sayes exactly, Hos. 4. 15. Though Israel transgresse, yet letnot Iudah sinne. And S. Hierome Super Haereticis prona intelligentia est. S. Hier. ibid. expresses it in this verie patticular sinne of Heresie and Error in Religion. Nor can you say, that Israel, from the time of the seperation, was not a Church, for there were true Prophets in it, 3. Reg. 17. sub Achabo. Elias, and 4. Reg. 3. sub lehoram, filio Achabi. Elizaeus, and others, and 3. Reg. 19.18. thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal. And there was saluation for these; which cannot be, where there is no Church. And God threatens to Hos. 9. 17. cast them away, to wander B among the Nations, and be no Congregation, no Church: therefore he had not yet cast them away into Non Ecclesiam, into no Church. And they are expressely called the people of the Lord in 4. Reg. 9.6. Iehu's time, and so continued long after. Nor can you plead, that Iudah is your part, and the Ten Tribes ours (as some of you doe:) for if that be true, you must graunt, that the Multitude and greater number is ours: And where then is Multitude, your numerous Note of the Church? But you cannot plead it: For certainely, if any Calues be set vp, they are in Dan and Bethel, they are not ours. C
Besides, to reforme what is amisse in Doctrine or Manners, is as lawfull for a particular Church, as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either. And your Question, Quo iudice? lyes alike against both. And yet I thinke it may be prooued, that the Church of Rome, and that as a particular Church, did promulgate an Orthodoxe Truth, which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church; namely, The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne. If shee erred in this Fact, confesse her Error; if shee erred not, Why may not another Church doe as shee did? A learned Schooleman of yours D saith she may: Non oportuit ad hoc eos vocare quum authoritas fuerit publicandi apud Ecclesiam Romanam, praecipuè quum vnicui (que) etiā particulari Ecclesiae liceat, id quod Catholicum est promulgare. Alb. Mag. in 1. D. 11. A. 9. The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree vpon this Truth, since the Authoritie of publishing it was in the Church of Rome, especially since it is lawfull for euerie particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike. Nor can you say he meanes Catholike, as fore-determined by the Church in generall; for so this Point, when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a Generall Councell, was nor. And how the Grecians were vsed in the after Councell (such as it was) of Florence, is not to trouble this Dispute; but Catholike stands there for that which is so in the [...] of it, and fundamentally. E Nor can you iustly say, That the Church of Rome did, or might doe this, by the Popes Authoritie [...] the Church. For suppose he haue that, and that his Sentence be infallible (I say suppose both, but I giue neither) yet neither his Authoritie nor [Page 42] his [...] can belong vnto him, as the particular Bishop of A that See, but as the Non errare conuenit Papae vt est caput. Bell. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. [...] Head of the whole Church. And you are all so lodged in this, that Li. 2. de Christo, c. 21. So you cannot find [...] of your [...] Truths, which are farre more likely to be kept: but when Errors are crept in, we must be bound to tell the [...], and the Time, & I know not what, of their Beginnings, or else they are not Errors. As if some Errors might not want a Record, as well as some Truth. Bellarmine professes he can neither tell the yeere when, nor the Pope vnder whom this Addition was made. A particular Church then, if you iudge it by the Schoole of Rome, or the Practise of Rome, may publish any thing that is Catholike, where the whole Church is silent; and may therefore reforme any thing that is not Catholike, where the whole Church is negligent, or will not. But you are as iealous of the honour of Rome, as De Appel. Eccl. [...]. cap. 2. num. 12. Capellus is, who is angrie with Baronius about certaine Canons in the second Mileuitan B Councell, and saith, That he considered not of what consequence it was, to graunt to particular Churches the power of making Canons of Faith, without consulting the Romane See, which (as hee saith, and you with him) was neuer lawfull, nor euer done. But suppose this were so, the B. his speech was not, Not consulting, but in case of neglecting, or refusing.
Besides, you must be put in remembrance too, that the B. spake at that time (and so must all that will speake of that Exigent) of the Generall Church, as it was for the most part forced vnder the Gouernment of the Romane See: and this you vnderstand C well enough; for in your verie next words you call it the Romane Church. Now I make no doubt, but that as the vniuersall Catholike Church would haue reformed her selfe, had shee beene freed of the [...] yoake; so while shee was vnder that yoake, the Church of Rome was, if [...] the onely, yet the chiefe hinderance of Reformation. And then in this sense it is more than cleare, That if the Romane Church will neither reforme, nor suffer Reformation, it is lawfull for any particular Church to reforme it selfe, so long as it doth it peaceably, and keepes it selfe to the Foundation. D
Which Question I asked, as not thinking it equitie, that Protestants in their owne Cause should be Accusers, Witnesses, and Judges of the Romane Church.
You doe well to tell the reason now, why you asked this Question; the B. sayes you did not [...] it [...] Conference: if you had, you [...] receiued your Answere. It is most true: No man in common [...] ought to E be suffered to be Accuser, Witnesse, and [...] in his [...]. But is there not [...] little [...], and [...] too, that any man that is accused, should be the Accused, and yet Witnesse and Iudge in his owne Cause [...] If the first may hold, no man shall [Page 43] be Innocent; and if the last, none will be Nocent. And what A doe we here with (in their owne Cause, against the Roman Church?) Why, is it not your owne too against the Protestant Church? And if it be a cause common to both, as certaine it is, then neither part alone may be Iudge: If neither alone may iudge, then either they must be iudged by a Third, which stands indifferent to both; and that is the Scripture. Or if there be a iealousie or doubt of the sense of Scripture, they must either both repaire to the Exposition of the Primitiue Church, and submit to that, or both call and submit to a Generall Councell, which fhall be lawfully called, and fairely and freely held, to iudge the B difference according to Scripture; which must be their Rule, as well as priuate mens.
I also asked, Who ought to iudge in this case? The B. said, a Generall Councell.
And surely, What greater or surer Iudgement you can haue, where sense of Scripture is doubted, than a Generall Councell, I doe not see? Nor doe you doubt: for you adde, C
I told him, That a Generall Councell, to wit, of Trent, had alreadie iudged, not the Romane Church, but the Protestants, to hold Errors. That (saith the B.) was not a lawfull Councell.
It is true, that you replyed for the Councell of Trent. And the B. his answere was, not onely, That that Councell was not Legall, in the necessarie conditions to be obserued in a Generall Councell, but that it was no Generall Councell, which againe D you are content to omit. Consider it well. First, Is that Councell Legall, the Abettors whereof maintaine publikely, That it is lawfull for them to conclude any Controuersie, and make it be de Fide, and so in your iudgement Fundamentall; though it haue not, I doe not say now the written Word of God for warrant, either in expresse Letter, or necessarie sense and deduction (as all vnerring Councels haue had, and as all must haue, that will not erre) but not so much as Etiamsi [...] cōfirmetur ne probabili Testimonio Scripturarū. Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. probable Testimonie from it; nay, quite Extra, without the Scripture? Nay more, Is that Councell Legall, where the Pope, the chiefe person E to be reformed, shall sit President in it, and be chiefe Iudge in his owne Cause, against all Law, Diuine, Naturall, and Humane? In a place not free, but in or too neere his owne Dominion? To which all were not called, that had deliberatiue or [Page 44] [...] voyce? In which, none had Suffrage, but such as A were sworne to the Pope, and the Church of Rome, and professed Enemies to all that called for Reformation, or a free Councell? And the Pope himselfe, to shew his Charitie, had declared and pronounced the Appellants, Heretikes, before Leo 10. Bull. Iun. 8. 1520. they were condemned by the Councell. I hope, an Assembly of Enemies are no lawfull Councell: And I thinke, the Decrees of such a One, are omni iure nulla, and carrie their nullitie with them through all Law.
And againe, Is that Councell Generall, that hath none of the Easterne Churches consent, nor presence there? Are all the B Greekes so become non Ecclesia, no Church, that they haue no interest in Generall Councels? It numbers indeed among the Subscribers, sixe Greekes; they might be so by Nation, or by Title purposely giuen them: but dare you say they were actually Bishops of, and sent from the Greeke Church to the Councell? Or is it to be accounted a Generall Councell, that in many Sessions had scarce ten Archbishops, or fortie, or fiftie Bishops present? And for the West of Christendome, neerer home, it reckons one English, S. Asaph: but Cardinall Poole was there too. English indeed he was by birth, but not sent to that Councell C by the King and Church of England, but as one of the Popes Legats: for at the beginning of the Councell, he was not Bishop in the Church of England; and after he was Archbishop of Canterburie, hee neuer went ouer to the Councell. And can you prooue, that S. Asaph went thither by Authoritie? There were but few of other Nations, and it may be, some of them reckoned with no more truth than the Greekes. In all the Sessions vnder Paul the third, but two Frenchmen, and sometimes none; as in the Sixt vnder Iulius the third, when Henry the second, of France, protested against that Councell. And in the D end it is well knowne, how all the French, which were then a good partie, held off, till the Cardinall of Lorraine was got to Rome. As for the Spaniards, they laboured for many things vpon good grounds, and were most vnworthily ouer-borne.
So (said I) would Arrians say of the Councell of Nice. The B. would not admit the case to be like:
So indeed you said. And not you alone: It is the common Obiection made against all that admit not euerie later E Councell, as that Councell of Nice, famous through all the Christian World. In the meane time, nor you nor they consider, that the case is not alike, as the B. told you. If the case be alike in all, Why doe not you admit that which was held at [Page 45] Ariminum; and the second, of Ephesus, as well as Nice? If you A say (as yours doe,) It was because the Pope approoued them not; I will put off the inualiditie of this Answere to a sitter time: in the meane space, suppose it true, and strong, this ground is gained, That the case is not alike for consent to all Councels. And if you looke to haue this graunted, That the Pope must confirme, or the Councell's not lawfull; we haue farre more reason to looke that this be not denyed, That the Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or necessarie Sense, or, the Councell's not lawfull. And the consent and confirmation of Scripture is of farre greater Authoritie to make the Councell Authenticall, and B the decisions of it de Fide, than any confirmation of the Popes. The Councell of Nice had the first, you say: We are sure it had the second. The Councell of Trent we are able to prooue had not the second, and so wee haue no reason to respect the first. And to what end doe your learned men maintaine, That a Councell may make a Conclusion de Fide, though it be simply Stapl. passim. sed aliter patres. Quae extra Euangelium sunt non defendam? Hilar. lib. 2. ad Const. Extrà, out of all bound of Scripture; but out of a iealousie at least, that this of Trent, and some others, haue in their determinations left both Letter and Sense of Scripture? Shew this of Nice, and the B. will graunt so much of the case C to be like.
But what will you say, if Literarū diuinit' inspiratarū testimonijs, L. 2. in Syn. Nic. To. 1. per Nicolinum. Ib. in Osij sententia, p. 517. Parati ex S. Spiritus arbitrio per plutima Diuinarū Scripturarum testimonia demonstrare haec ità se habere. Constantine required, That things brought into question, should be answered and solued by Testimonie out of Scripture? And the Bishops of the Nicene Councell neuer refused that Rule. And what will you say, if they professe they depart not from it, but are readie by manie Testimonies of Diuine Scripture to demonstrate their Faith? Is the case then alike betwixt it and Trent? But you say, the B. pretended somewhat else for his not admitting the case to be like. D
Pretending, that the Pope made Bishops of purpose, for his side. But this the Bishop prooued not.
No: nor had he reason to take on him to prooue what he said not. He knowes it will be expected he should prooue what hee saith; and it is hard to prooue the purpose of the Popes heart. For if it be prooued, that hee made Bishops at that time; that some of them were titular onely, and had no liuelyhood to subsist, but out of his Purse (and so must hang at E the strings of it;) that some of these, thus made, were sent to the Councell, and sure not without their Errand: yet if the Pope will say, he neither made nor sent them to ouer-rule the Holy Ghost at that meeting, or of purpose for his side (as no [Page 46] question but it will be said) Who can prooue it, that is not a A Surueyor of the Heart? But though the Popes heart cannot be seene, yet if these and the like presumptions be true, it is a great signe that Trent was too corrupt and factious a meeting for the Holy Ghost to be at. And sure the case in this, not alike at Nice.
That which [...] B. said, was, That Trent could be no indifferent Councell to the Church, the Pope hauing made himselfe a strong partie in it. And this the B. prooued, though you be here not onely content to omit, but plainely to denie the proofe. For did not the B. prooue it thus? and you answered B not; That there were more Italian Bishops there, than of all Christendome besides: more? yea, more than double. And this he prooued out of the Councell it selfe, which you had in your hand in Decimo Sexto, but had no great heart to looke it. For where the number of Prelates are expressed that had Suffrage and Vote in that Councell, the Italians are set downe to be 187, and all the rest make but 83. So there were more Italian Bishops by 104, than of all the rest of Christendome. Sure the Pope did not meane to be ouer-reached in this Councell: And whatsoeuer became of his infallibilitie otherwise, C he might this way be sure to be infallible in whatsoeuer hee would haue determined. So the B. prooued this sufficiently. For if it were not to be sure of a side, giue any satisfying reason, Why such a potent partie of Italians, more than double to the whole Christian World, should be there? Shew me the like for Nice, and I will giue it, that the case is alike betweene these two Councels. But you haue not yet done with the B. You adde:
In fine, the B. wished, That a lawfull Generall Councell D were called, to end Controuersies. (The persons present) said, That the King was enclined thereunto, and that therefore wee Catholikes might doe well to concurre.
And what say you to the Bishops wish? You pretend great loue to the Truth, would you not haue it found? Can you, or any Christian, be offended, that there should be a good end of Controuersies? Can you thinke of a better end, than E by a Generall Councell? And if you haue a most gracious King enclined vnto it (as you say it was offered) how can you [...] your selues, if you doe not consent? Yes, it seemes you can: for you say againe,
I asked the B. Whether he thought a Generall Councell A might [...]? He said, It might.
I presume, you doe not looke the B. or I for him, should enter into a proofe of this Controuersie, Whether a Generall Councell may erre in determination, or not? Your selfe brought no proofe, that it cannot; and till that be brought, the Bishop his speech is good, that it can: And yet he hopes to be found no infringer of any power giuen by Christ to his Church. But it seemes by that which followes, you did by this Question B (Can a Generall Councell erre?) but seeke to win ground for your other, which followes:
If a Generall Councell may erre, What neerer are wee then (said I) to vnitie, after a Councell determined? Yes (said he) although it may erre, yet we should be bound to hold with it, till another come to reuerse it.
Whether a Generall Councell may erre, or not, is a Question C of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre, leaues the Church not onely without remedie against an Error, but also without sense that it may need a remedie, and so without care to seeke it; which is the miserie of the Church of Rome at this day. To say it can erre, seemes to expose the members of the Church to an vncertaintie and wauering in the Faith, makes vnquiet spirits not onely disrespect former Councels of the Church, but also slight and contemne whatsoeuer it may now determine; into which Error, some opposers of the Church of Rome haue fallen. And vpon this is grounded D your Question, Wherein are wee neerer to vnitie, if a Councell may erre?
In relating the B. his Answer to this, you are not so candide, as you confesse him ingenuous before. For his words did not sound as yours seeme to doe, That wee should hold with the Councell, erre or not erre, till another came to reuerse it: As if grounds of Faith might varie at the Racket, and be cast of each side, as a cunning hand might lay them. You forget againe, omit at least, (and with what mind, you best know) the B. his Caution: For he said, The determination of a Generall Councell erring, was E to stand in force, and haue externall obedience at the least yeelded to it, till euidence of Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary, made the Error appeare, and vntill thereupon another Councell, of equall Authoritie, did reuerse it. Thus then the B.
[Page 48] But indeed he might haue returned vpon you againe: If a A Generall Councell, not confirmed by the Pope, may erre, (which you affirme) To what end then a Generall Councell? And you may answere, Yes: for although a Generall Councell may erre, yet the Pope, as Head of the Church, cannot. An excellent meanes of vnitie, to haue all in the Church as the Pope will haue it, what euer Scripture say, or the Church thinke. And then I pray, to what end a Generall Councell? Will his Holinesse be so holy, as to confirme a Generall Councell, if it determine against him?
I, for my part, am willing a little to consider hereupon the B point of Generall Councels, How they may, or may not erre; and a little to looke into the Romane and Protestant opinion concerning them; which is more agreeable to the Power and Rule which Christ hath left in his Church, and which is most preseruatiue of Peace established, or ablest to reduce vnitie into the Church of Christ, when that poore Ship hath her Ribs dashed in [...] by the Waues of Contention. And this Consideration I will venture to the World, but onely in the Nature of a [...], and with submission to my Mother, the Church of England, and the Mother of vs all, the Vniuersall Catholike Church C of Christ.
1. First then I consider, Whether all the Power that an Oecumenicall Councell hath to determine, and all the Assistance it hath, not to erre in that determination; it hath it not all from the Catholike vniuersall Bodie of the Church, or Clergie in the Church, if you will, whose Representatiue it is? It seemes it hath. For the gouernment of the Church being not Monarchicall, but as Christ is Head, this Principle is [...] in nature, Euerie Bodie collectiue, that represents, receiues Power and Priuiledges from that Bodie which is represented; else a Representation D might haue force, without the thing it represents; which cannot be: So, no Power in the Councell, no Assistance, but what is in and to the Church. But yet then it may be questioned, Whether the Representing Bodie hath all the power, strength, and priuiledge, which the Represented hath? And suppose it hath all the Legall power, yet it hath not all the Naturall, eyther of strength or wisedome, that the whole hath. Now because tho Representatiue hath power from the whole, and the maine [...] can meet no other way; therefore the Acts, [...], or [...] of the Representatiue, be it Ecclesiasticall or Ciuile, are binding in E their strength. But they are not so certaine [...] from [...], as that Wisedome which resides in the [...]. [...] in Assemblies meerely Ciuile, or Ecclesiasticall, all [...] men cannot be in the Bodie that represents. And it is possible so many [Page 49] able and sufficient men (for some particular businesse) may A be out, as that they which are in, may misse, or mis-apply that. Reason and Ground, vpon which the determination is principally to rest. Here, for want of a cleare view of this Ground, the Representatiue Bodie erres; whereas the Represented, by vertue of these Members, may hold the Principle vnuiolated.
2. Secondly, I consider, That since it is thus in Nature, and in Ciuile Bodies, if it be not so in Ecclesiasticall too, some reason must be giuen why, Ecclesia est vnum corpus mysticum per similitudinem ad Naturale. Durand. 3. D. 14. q. 2. n. 5. Biel, Lect. 23. in Can. Miss. For that Bodie also consists of men: Those men neyther all equall in their perfections of Knowledge and B Iudgement, whether acquired by Industrie, or rooted in nature, or infused by God: Not all equall, nor any one of them perfect and absolute, or freed from passion and humane infirmities: Nor doth their meeting together, make them infallible in all things, though the Act which is hammered out by many together, must in reason be perfecter than that which is but the Child of one mans sufficiencie. If then a Generall Councell haue no ground of not erring from the men, or the meeting, either it must not be at all, or be by some assistance and power vpon them, when they are so met together: And this, if it be lesse C than the assistance of the Holy Ghost, it cannot make them secure against Error.
3. Thirdly, I consider, That the assistance of the Holy Ghost is without Error, that's no question; and as little there is, that a Councell hath it. But the doubt that troubles, is, Whether all assistance of the Holy Ghost be affoorded in such a high manner, as to cause all the Definitions of a Councell, in matters fundamentall in the Faith, and in remote Deductions from it, to be alike infallible?
The Romanists, to prooue there is Omnem veritatem infallibiliter docendi, &c. Stapl. Relect. praef. ad Lector. infallible assistance, D produce some places of Scripture; but no one of them inferres, much lesse enforces an infallibilitie. The places which Stapleton there rests vpon, are these: S. Ioh. 16.13. I will send you the Spirit of Truth, which will lead you into all Truth: And, S. Ioh. 14.16. This Spirit shall abide with you for euer: And, S. Matth. 28.20. Behold, I am with you vnto the end of the World. To these, others adde, S. Matth. 16.18. The founding of the Church vpon the Rocke, against which the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile: And, Christs prayer for S. Peter, S. Luc. 22.32. That his Faith faile not.
1. For the first, which is, Leading into all Truth, and that for E euer: Prosp. de vocat. Gent. lib. 1. c. 10. All, is not alwayes vniuersally taken in Scripture; nor is it here simply for All Truth: for then a Generall Councell could no more erre in matter of Fact, than in matter of Faith; in which yet your Bellarm. 2. de Conc. c. 8. §. Respondeo quidam. selues graunt it may erre. But [Page 50] into All Dubium est an [...] docebit [...], S. Ioh. 14. 26. referendum sit ad [...] dixi [...] quasi non aliud docturum [...]. Sanct. dicat, quam quod ipse antea docuisset, non repugnabo si quis ita velit interpretare, &c. [...]. in S. Ioh. 14. Truth, is a limited All; into A All Truth absolutely necessarie to saluation: And this, when they suffer themselues to be led by the blessed Spirit, by the Word of God. And all Truth which Christ had before (at least fundamentally) deliuered vnto them, S. Ioh. 16.14. Hee shall receiue of mine, and shew it vnto you: And againe, S. Ioh. 14.26. Hee shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, which I haue told you. And for this necessarie Truth too, the Apostles receiued this promise not for themselues, and a Councell, but for themselues, and the Bellarm. 2. de Conc. c. 9. §. alteram. [...] Sp. Sancti, non est propter Concil. sed vniuersam Ecclesiam. whole Catholike B Church; of which, a Councell, be it neuer so generall, is a verie little part: Yea, and this verie Assistance is not so absolute, nor in that manner to the whole Church, as it was to the Apostles; neyther doth Christ in that place speake directly of a Councell, but of his Apostles Preaching, and Doctrine.
2. As for Christs being with them vnto the end of the World, the Fathers are so various, that in the sense of the antient Church, wee may vnderstand him present in S. August. Tr. 50. in S. Ioh. Isidor. 1. Senten. cap. 14. Maiestie, in S. Hilar. in Psalm. 124. Iustine Martyr. Dial. cum Triphone. Prosp. Epist. ad Demetriadem. Power, in Aid S. Hilar. in Psalm. 124. Prosper, lib. 2. de vocat. Gent. cap. 2. [...]. Serm. 2. de Resurrect. Dom. cap. 3. Isidor. in Ios. cap. 12. and Assistance, against C the difficulties they should find, for preaching Christ; which is the natiue sense, as I take it. And this promise was made, to support their weakenesse. As for his presence, in teaching by the Holy Ghost, S. Cyril, lib. 7. Dial. de Trin. Prosp. Epist. ad [...]. few mention it; and no one of them which doth, speakes of any infallible Assistance, further than the succeeding Church keepes to the Word of the Apostles, as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit. Besides, the S. Hilar. in Psalm. 124. S. Cyril, lib. 7. Dial. de Trin. S. August. 6. de Gen. ad Lit. c. 8. S. Leo. Serm. 10. de Natiu. Dom. c. 5. Isid. in Ios. c. 12. In all which places, Vobiscum is either interpreted cum suis, or fidelibus, or vniuersa Ecclesia. Fathers referre their speech to D the Church vniuersall, not to anie Councell, or Representatiue Bodie. And Hoc colligitur, sed quaeritur non quid colligitur, sed quid dicere voluit. [...]. in S. Matth. 28. Maldonate addes, That this his presence by teaching, is or may be a Collection from the place, but is not the intention of Christ.
3. For the Rocke vpon which the Church is founded, which is the next place, wee dare not lay any other Foundation than 1. Cor. 3. 11. Christ: Christ layd his Ephes. 2.20. Apostles; no question, but vpon himselfe. With these, S. Peter was layd, no man questions: And in prime place of Order, (would his clayming Successors E be content with that) as appeares, and diuerse Fathers witnesse, by his particular designement, Tu es Petrus. But yet the Rocke euen there spoken of, is not S. Peters person, eyther onely or properly, but the Faith which hee professed. And [Page 51] to this, beside the Euidence which is in Text and Truth, the A S. [...]. [...] ad [...]. Qui [...] Ecclesiam super Petram aedificatione spirituali. S. Hilar. l. 6. de [...]. Super hanc [...] Confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est. Et [...] post, Hec Fides [...] fundamentum est. S. Greg. Nyss. de Trin. aduers. [...]. Super [...] Petram [...] Ecclesiam meam, super [...], videlicet, Christi. S. Isid. Pelus. Epist. lib. 1. Ep. 235. Vt hac ratione [...] omnibus Confessionem traderer, quam ab [...] inspiratus Petrus tanquā basin ac fundamentum iecit, super quod [...] Ecclesiam suam exstruxit. S. Cyril. Alex. de Trin. lib. 4. Petram opinor per agnominationem, [...] quam inconcussam & firmissimam Discipuli Fidem vocauit, in quâ Ecclesia Christi ita fundata, & firmata esset, vt non laberetur, &c. B. Theodor. in Cant. Petram appellat Fidei pietatem, veritatis professionem, &c. Et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. S. Greg. Ep. [...]. 3. Ep. 33. In vera fide persistite, & vitam vestram in Petram Ecclesiae, hoc est in Confessione [...] Petri Apostolorum Principis solidate. Theophilact. in Matth. 16. Super eum aedificauit Ecclesiam; quia enim confessus [...], &c. quod haec confessio fundamentum erit, &c. S. Aug. in 1. Ep. S. Ioh. tract. 10. Quid est super hanc Petram? Super hanc Fidem, super id quod dictum est, Tu es &c. S. [...]. Orat. 25. Hanc confessionem cum nominasset Christus Petram, Petrum nuncupat eum, qui primum illam est confessus, donans illi hanc appellationem [...] insigne & monumentum huius confessionis. Haec enim est reuerà pietatis Petra, haec salutis basis, &c. S. Jacob. Liturgia, [...]; p. 26. &c. And some which [...] the person of S. Peter, professe it is propter robur Confessionis. Iustin Martyr, Dial. cum Triph. S. Chrys. Hom. 2. in Psal. 50. S. Amb. lib. 10. in S. Luc. c. 24. And S. Greg. giues it for a Rule, when Petra is read in the singular number (and so it is here) Christus est, Christ is signified. Fathers come in with very full consent. And this, That the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it, is not spoken of the not [...] of the Church principally, but of the not Non deficit. S. Bern. Ser. 79. in Cant. And Bellarmine himselfe going to prooue Ecclesiam non posse deficere, begins with this verie place of Scripture. Lib. 3. de Eccl. c. 13. falling away B of it from the Foundation. Now a Church may erre, and daungerously too, and yet not fall from the Foundation, especially if that of Lib. 3. de Ecclesia, cap. 14. Bellarmine be true, That there are many things, euen de Fide, of the Faith, which yet are not necessarie C to saluation. Besides, euen here againe the promise of this stable edification, is to the whole Church, not to a Councell; at the least, no further than a Councell builds as a Church is built, that is, vpon Christ.
4. The last place, is Christs Prayer for S. Peters Faith. The [...] sense of which place is, That Christ prayed and obtained for S. Peter perseuerance in the grace of God, against the strong temptation which was to winnow him aboue the rest. But to conclude an infallibilitie from hence in the Pope, or in his Chaire, or in the Romane See, or in a Generall Councell, though the Pope be D President, I find no antient Fathers that dare aduenture it. And Lib. 4. [...] Pontif. Rom. cap. 3. Bellarmine himselfe, besides some Popes, in their owne Cause (and that in Epistles counterfeit, or falsely alledged) hath not a Father to name for this sense of the place, till he come downeto Chrysologus, Theophylact, and S. Bernard: of which, Chrysologus his speech is but a flash of Rhetorike; and the other two are men of Yesterday, compared with Antiquitie, and liued when (it was Gods great grace, and our wonder) the corruption of the time had not made them corrupter than they are. And Thomas is resolute, that what is meant here beyond S. Peters person, is 2 2. q. 2. A 6. ad 3. referred E to the whole Church. And the Glasse vpon the Canon Law is more peremptorie than he, euen to the denyall, that it is Causa. 24. q. 1. C. A Recta. meant of the Pope. And if this place warrant not the Popes Faith, Where is the infallibilitie of the Councell that depends vpon it?
[Page 52] And for all the places together, weigh them with indifferencie, A and either they speake of the Church (including the Apostles) as all of them doe; and then all graunt the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce, Diuine and Infallible: or else they are generall, vnlimitted, and applyable to priuate Assemblies, as well as Generall Councels; which none graunt to be infallible, but some mad Enthusiasts: or else they are limitted, not simply into All Truth, but, All necessarie to Saluation; in which I shall easily graunt a Generall Councell cannot erre, if it suffer it selfe to be led by this [...] of Truth in the Scripture, and take not vpon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit. For suppose B these places, or any other, did promise Assistance euen to Infallibilitie, yet they graunted it not to euerie Generall Councell, but to the Catholike Bodie of the Church it selfe. And if it be in the whole Church principally, then is it in a Generall Councell but by Consequent, as the Councell represents the whole. And that which belongs to a thing by consequent, doth not otherwise, nor longer, belong vnto it, than it consents and cleaues to that vpon which it is a Consequent. And therefore a Generall Councell hath not this Assistance, but as it keepes to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ, whose it is C to heare his Word, and determine by it. And therefore, if a Generall Councell will goe out of the Churches Way, it may easily goe without the Churches Truth.
4. Fourthly I consider, That All agree, That the Church in generall can neuer erre from the Faith necessarie to saluation: No Persecution, no Temptation, and no [...]. 16.18. Gates of Hell, whatsoeuer is meant by them, can euer so preuaile against it. For all the members of the Militant Church cannot erre, either in the whole Faith, or in any Article of it; it is impossible. For if all might so erre, there could be no vnion betweene them as D members, and Christ the Head: And no vnion betweene Head and members, no Bodie, and so no Church; which cannot be. But there is not the like consent, That Ecclesia [...] fidem habet [...], &c. non quidem in Generali Synodo congregata, quam aliquoties errasse [...], &c. Wald. lib. 2. Doct. Fid. Ar. 2. c. 19. §. 1. Generall Councels cannot erre. And it seemes strange to me, that the Fathers hauing to doe with so many Heretikes, and so many of them opposing Church. Authoritie in their condemnation, this Proposition, euen in tearmes (A Generall Councell cannot erre) should be found in none of them, that I can yet see. Suppose it were true, That no Generall Councell had erred in any matter of moment to this day, which will not be found true; E yet this would not haue followed, that it is therefore infallible, and cannot erre. I haue not time to descend into particulars; therefore to the Generall still. S. Augustine 2. Bapt. contr. Donat. cap. 3. puts a difference betweene the Rules of Scripture, and the definitions [Page 53] of men. This difference is, Praeponitur Scriptura, That the Scripture A hath the Prerogatiue: That Prerogatiue is, That whatsoeuer is found written in Scripture, may neither be doubted, nor disputed, whether it be true, or right: But the Letters of Bishops may not onely be disputed, but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise than they, or by Nationall Councels; and Nationall Councels, by [...], or Generall: And euen Ipsa (que) plenaria [...] priora à posteriorib' emendari. Plenarie Councels themselues may be amended, the former by the latter. It seemes it was no newes with S. Augustine, that a Generall Councell might erre, and therefore inferior to the Scripture, which may neither be doubted, nor disputed, where it affirmes. And if it be so with B the definition of a Councell too (as Vox Ecclesiae talis [...], vt non de eâ iudicemus [...] ne an secus docuerit. So Stapl. Rel. Cont. 4. q. 1. Ar. 1. Stapleton would haue it) That that may neither be doubted, nor disputed, Where is then the Scriptures Prerogatiue?
I know there is much shifting about this place, but it cannot be wrastled off. Stapleton De Regulis Morum & Disciplina. [...]. Con. 6. q. 3. A. 4. sayes first, That S. Augustine speakes of the Rules of Manners, and Discipline: And this is Bellarmines last shift. Both are out, and Bellarmine in a Contradiction. Bellarmine in a Contradiction: For first hee tells vs, Generall Councels cannot erre in Lib. 2. de Concil. [...]. 2. Princip. Precepts of Manners; and then, to turne off S. Augustine in this place, he tells vs, That if S. Augustine C doth not speake of matter of Fact, but of Right, and of vniuersall Questions of Right, then he is to be vnderstood of Ib. cap. 7. §. Potest etiam. Precepts of Manners, not of Points of Faith. Where he hath first runne himselfe vpon a Contradiction; and then wee haue gayned this ground vpon him, That either his Answere is nothing, or else against his owne state of the Question. A Generall Councell can erre in Precepts of Manners; and both are out: For the whole dispute of S. Augustine, is against the Error of Cyprian, followed by the [...], That true Baptisme could not be giuen by Heretikes, and such as were out of the D Church. And the proofe which Stapleton and Bellarmine draw out of the subsequent words, ( Quando aliquo rerum experimento quod clausam erat aperitur. When by any experiment of things, that which was shut, is opened) is too weake: For experiment there is not of Fact; nor are the words conclusum est, as if it were of a Rule of Discipline concluded, as Stapleton cites them; but a further experiment or proofe of the Question in hand, and pertaining to Faith, which was then shut vp, and as S. Augustine after speakes, Ib. c. 4. Nebulis inuoluta. wrapped vp in cloudie darkenesse.
Next, Stapleton Sensus est quod Concilia posteriora emēdant, id est, perfectius explicant fidem in semine antiquae Doctrinae latentem, &c. will haue it, That if S. Augustine doe speake of a Cause of Faith, then his meaning is, that latter Generall E Councels can mend, that is, explicate more perfectly that Faith which lay hid in the Seed of antient Doctrine. He makes instance, That about the Diuinitie of Christ, the Councell of Ephesus explicated the first of Nice; Chalcedon, both of them; [Page 54] Constance, Chalcedon: And then concludes, Quâ in re nihil erroneum vllum Concil. docuit, &c. In all which A things, none of (these) Councels taught that which was erroneous. An excellent Conclusion: These Councels, and These, in this thing, taught no Error, and were onely explained: Therefore no Councell can erre in any matter of Faith; or therefore S. Augustine speakes not of an emendation of Error, but of an explanation of Sense: whereas euerie Eye sees neither of these can follow.
Now that S. Augustine meant plainely, That euen a Plenarie Councell might erre, and that Saepè. often, (for that is his word) and that in matter of Faith, and might and ought so to be amended B in a latter Councell, I thinke will thus appeare. First, his word is Emendari, amend, which properly supposes for Error and faultinesse, not explanation: And S. Augustine needed not goe to a word of such a Not vsed, but either for conigere, or auferre. And so S. Augustine vses the word, l. 20. cont. Faust. c. 21. and Bellarmine, though he interprete it in matter of fact, yet equals the word with correxit. 2. de Conc. ca. 8. §. Respond. Quaest. forced sense, nor sure would, especially in a Disputation against Aduersaries. Next, S. Augustines Dispute is against S. Cyprian, and the Councell held at Carthage, about Baptisme by Heretikes; in which point, that Nationall Councell erred (as all now agree.) And S. Augustines deduction goes on: Scripture cannot be other than right; that is the prerogatiue of it: but Bishops may, and be Reprehendi. Reprehended C for it, if peraduenture they erre from the Truth; and that either by more learned Bishops, or by Prouinciall Councels. Here Reprehension, and that for deuiation from the Truth, is (I hope) Emendation properly, and not Explanation onely. e Si quid in ijs fortè a veritate deuiatum est. Then Prouinciall Councels, they must Cedere. yeeld to Generall; and to yeeld, is not in case of Explanation onely. Then it followes, that euen Plenarie Councels themselues may be amended, the former by the latter; still retayning that which went before, If peraduenture they erred, or made deuiation from the Truth. And if this be not so, I would faine know, why in one and the D same tenure of words, in one and the same continuing Argument, and deduction of S. Augustine, Reprehendi should be in proper sense, and à veritate deuiatum in proper sense, and Cedere in proper sense; and onely Emendari should not be proper, but stand for an Explanation? If you say the reason is, because the former words are applyed to men, and Nationall Councels, both which may erre, but this last to Generall Councels, which cannot erre; this is most miserable begging of the Principle, and thing in question.
Againe, S. Augustine concludes there, That the Generall E Councell preceding, may be amended by Generall Councels that follow, Quum cognoscitur quod latebat. When that is knowne, which lay hid before. Not as Stapleton would haue it, lay hid as in the Seed of antient Doctrine onely, and so needed nothing but explanation; but hid [Page 55] in some darkenesse, or ambiguitie, which led the former into A error, and mistaking, as appeares: For S. Augustine would haue this amendment made, without sacrilegious Pride, (doubtlesse of insulting vpon the former Councell, that was to be amended) and without swelling Arrogancie (sure against the weakenesse in the former Councell) and without contention of Enuie (which vses to accompanie mans frailetie, where his or his friends error is to be amended by the latter Councell) and in holy Humilitie, in Catholike Peace, in Christian Charitie, (no question, that a Schisme be not made to teare the Church, as here the Donatists did, while one Councell goes to reforme the Lapse of another, B if any be.) Now to what end should this learned Father be so zealous in this worke, this highest worke that I know in the Church (Reuiewing and surueying Generall Councels) to keepe off Pride, and Arrogancie, and Enuie, and to keepe all in Humilitie, Peace, and Charitie; if after all this noyse, he thought latter Councels might doe nothing but amend, that is, explaine the former?
That shift which Bellarmine addes to these two of Stapleton, is poorest of all, namely, That S. Augustine speakes of vnlawfull Councels; and it is no question but they may be amended, as C the second Ephesine was at Calcedon: for this Answere giues vp the case. For it graunts, That a Councell may erre, and be amended in Doctrine of Faith; and in case it be not amended, condemned and reiected by the Church, as this of Ephesus and diuerse others were. And as for that meere Tricke, of the Popes Instruction, Approbation, or Confirmation, to preserue it from Error, or ratifie it, that it hath not erred; the most antient Church knew it not. Hee had his Suffrage, as other great Patriarkes had; and his Vote was highly esteemed, not onely for his place, but for worth too, as Popes were then: But that the D whole Councell depended vpon him, and his confirmation, was then vnknowne, and I verily thinke, at this day not beleeued by your selues.
5. Fiftly, it must be considered, If a Generall Councell may erre, Who shall iudge it? S. Augustine is at Ibid. priora à posterioribus, Nothing sure, that is lesse than a Generall Councell. Why, but this yet layes all open to vncertainties, and makes way for a Whirlewind of a priuate spirit, to ruffle the Church. No, neither of these. First, all is not open to Vncertainties: For Generall Councels, lawfully called and ordered, and lawfully E proceeding, are a great and an awfull Representation, and cannot erre in matters of Faith, if they keepe themselues to Gods Rule, and attempt not to make a new of their owne; and are with all submission to be obserued by euerie Christian, where Scripture [Page 56] or euident Demonstration come not against it. Nor doth it A make way for the Whirlewind of a priuate spirit: For priuate spirits are too giddie to rest vpon Scripture, and too headie and shallow to be acquainted with demonstratiue Arguments. And it were happie for the Church, if shee might neuer be troubled with priuate spirits, till they brought such Arguments. I know this is hotely obiected against Praefat. p. 29. Hooker: The Dialogus dict' Deus & Rex. Author calls him a Cordatus Protestans. wise Protestant, yet turnes thus vpon him: If a Councell must yeeld to a demonstratiue proofe, Who shall iudge whether the Argument that is brought, be a Demonstration, or not? For euerie man that will kicke against the Church, will say the Scripture he vrges B is euident, and his Reason a Demonstration. And what is this, but to leaue all to the wildnesse of a priuate spirit?
Can any ingenuous man reade this passage in Hooker, and dreame of a priuate spirit? For to the Question, Who shall iudge? Hooker answers, as if it had beene then made, Praef. p. 29. An Argument necessarie and demonstratiue, is such (saith hee) as being proposed to any man, and vnderstood, the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent vnto it. So, it is not enough to thinke or say it is demonstratiue. The light then of a Demonstratiue Argument, is the euidence which it selfe hath in it selfe to all that vnderstand C it. Well, but because all vnderstand it not, If a Quarrell be made, who shall decide it? No question, but a Generall Councell, not a priuate spirit: first, in the intent of the Author; for Hooker in all that discourse makes the Sentence of the Councell Praef. p. 28. binding: and therefore that is made Iudge, not a priuat spirit. And then for the Iudge of the Argument, it is as plaine: For if it be euident to any man, then to so many learned men as are in a Councell doubtlesse: And if they cannot but assent, it is hard to thinke them so impious, that they will define against it. And if that which is euident to any man, is not euident D to such a graue Assembly, it is no Demonstration, and the producers of it ought to rest, and not to trouble the Church.
Nor is this Hookers alone, nor is it newly thought on by vs: It is a ground in Nature, which Grace doth euer set right, neuer vndermine. And S. Augustine 2. De Bapt. cont. Don. cap. 4. hath it twice in one Chapter, That S. Cyprian and that Councell at Carthage would haue presently yeelded to any one that would Vni verū dicenti, & demonstranti. demonstrate Truth. Nay, it is a Rule with Cont. Fund. c. 4. him, Consent of Nations, Authoritie confirmed by Miracles and Antiquitie, S. Peters Chaire, and Succession from it, Motiues to keepe him in the Catholike Church, must not hold E him against Demonstration of Truth; Quae quidem si tam manifesta mō stratur, vt in dubiū venire non potest, praeponēda est omnib' illis reb' quib' in Catholica teneor: Ita si aliquid apertissimū in Euangelio. Ib. c. 5. which if it be so clearely monstrated, that it cannot come into doubt, it is to be preferred before all those things, by which a man is held in the Catholike Church. Therefore an euident Scripture, or Demonstration of Truth, must [Page 57] take place euerie where; but where these cannot be had, there A must be submission to Authoritie.
And doth not Bellarmine himselfe graunt this? For speaking of Councels, he deliuers this Proposition, That Inferiors may not iudge whether their Superiors (and that in a Councell) doe proceed lawfully, or not. But then hauing bethought himselfe, that Inferiors at all times, and in all causes, are not so to be cast off, hee addes this Exception, Lib. 2. de Concil. c. 8. nisi manifestissimè conster intcllerabilem Errorem committi. Vnlesse it manifestly appeare, that an intollerable Error be committed. So then, if such an Error be, and be manifest, Inferiors may doe their dutie, and a Councell must yeeld; vnlesse you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a B priuate spirit; for neither doth hee expresse who shall iudge whether the Error be intollerable.
This will not downe with you, but the Definition of a Generall Councell is and must be infallible. Your fellowes tell vs (and you can affirme no more) That the voyce of the Church determining in Councell, is not Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 3. Ar. 1. Humane, but Diuine: That is well; Diuine, then sure infallible. Yea, but the Proposition stickes in the throat of them that would vtter it. It is not Diuine simply, but in a Diuina suo modo. Ibid. manner Diuine. Why but then sure not infallible, because it may speake loudest in that manner in which C it is not Diuine. Nay more: The Church (forsooth) is an infallible Foundation of Faith, In altiori genere, viz. in genere causae efficientis, atque adeò aliqua ex parte formalis. Ib. q. 4. Ar. 3. in a higher kind than the Scripture: For the Scripture is but a Foundation in testimonie, and matter to be beleeued; but the Church as the efficient cause of Faith, and in some sort the verie formall. Is not this Blasphemie? Doth not this knocke against all euidence of Truth, and his owne grounds, that sayes it? Against all euidence of Truth: For in all ages, all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God (as all Christians doe) doe with the same breath graunt it most vndoubted and infallible. But all men haue not so iudged D of the Churches Definitions, though they haue in greatest obedience submitted to them. And against his owne grounds, that sayes it: For the Scripture is absolutely and euerie way Diuine; the Churches Definition is but suo modo, in a sort or manner Diuine. But that which is but in a sort, can neuer be a Foundation in a higher degree, than that which is absolute, and euerie way such: Therefore neyther can the Definition of the Church be so infallible as the Scripture; much lesse in altiori genere, in a higher kind than the Scripture.
But because, when all other things faile, you flye to this, That E the Churches Definition in a Generall Councell, is by Inspiration, and so Diuine and infallible; my hast shall not carrie me from a little Consideration of that too.
6. Sixtly then, If the Definition of a Generall Councell [Page 58] be infallible, then the infallibilitie of it is either in the Conclusion, A and in the Meanes that prooue it; or in the Conclusion, not the Meanes; or in the Meanes, not the Conclusion. But it is infallible in none of these. Not in the first, The Conclusion, and the Meanes: For there are diuers deliberations in Generall Councels, where the Conclusion is Catholike, but the Meanes by which they prooue it, not firme; therefore not infallible. Not in the second, The Conclusion, and not the Meanes: For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the premisses, or Principles out of which it is deduced; therefore if they be sometimes vncertaine, as is prooued before, the Conclusion cannot be infallible. B Not in the third, The Meanes, and not the Conclusion: For that cannot but be true and necessarie, if the Meanes be so. And this I am sure you will neuer graunt; because if you should, you must denie the infallibilitie which you seeke to establish.
To this (for I confesse the Argument is old, but can neuer be worne out, nor shifted off) your great Maister Relect. Cont. 4. q. 2. Stapleton (who is miserably hampered in it, and indeed so are yee all) answers, That the infallibilitie of a Councell is in the second course; that is, It is infallible in the Conclusion, though it be vncertaine and C fallible in the Meanes and proofe of it. How comes this to passe? It is a thing altogether vnknowne in Nature, and Art too, That fallible Principles can either father or mother, beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion. Well, that is graunted in Nature, and in all Argumentation, that causes knowledge. But wee shall haue Reasons for it: Ib. Not. 4. First, because the Church is discursiue, and vses the weights and moments of Reason in the Meanes; but is Propheticall, and depends vpon immediate Reuelation from the Spirit of God, in deliuering the Conclusion. It is but the making of this appeare, and all Controuersie is at an end. Well, I will not D discourse here, to what end there is any vse of Meanes, if the Conclusion be Propheticall, which yet is iustly vrged; for no good cause can be assigned of it. If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion (I speake still of the present Church; for that which included the Apostles, which had the Spirit of Prophesie, and immediate Reuelation, was euer propheticke in the Definition) Then since it deliuers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art, that is, out of Principles which can beare it, there must be some supernaturall Authoritie which must deliuer this Truth: That (say I) must be the Scripture: For if you flye E to immediate Reuelation now, the Enthusiasme must be yours. But the Scriptures which are brought, in the verie Exposition of all the Primitiue Church, neyther say it, nor inforce it: Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion. [Page 59] I know no other thing can warrant it. If you thinke A the Tradition of the Church can, make the World beholding to you. Produce any Father of the Church, that sayes, this is an vniuersall Tradition of the Church, That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall, and by immediate Reuelation. Produce any one Father, that sayes it of his owne authoritie, That he thinkes so: Nay, make it appeare, that euer any Prophet, in that which he deliuered from God as infallible Truth, was euer discursiue at all in the Meanes: Nay, make it but probable in the ordinarie course of Prophesie (and I hope you goe no higher, nor will I offer, at Gods absolute Power) That that B which is discursiue in the Meanes, can be Propheticke in the Conclusion, and you shall be my great Apollo for euer. In the meane time, I haue learned this from Propherae audiebant à Deo interiùs inspirante. Thom. 2. 2. q. 5. A. 1. ad 3. yours, That all Prophesie is by Vision, Inspiration, &c. and that no Vision admits discourse: That all Prophesie is an Illumination, not alwayes present, but when the Word of the Venit ad me Verbum Domini. Lord came to them, and that was not by discourse. And yet you Stapl. Rel. Cont. 4. q. 2. p. 473. say againe, That this Propheticke infallibilitie of the Church is not gotten without studie and Industrie. You should doe well to tell vs too, why God would put his Church to studie for the Spirit of Prophesie, C which neuer anie particular Prophet was put vnto. Propheticam reuelationem nullo pacto haberi [...], vel ope naturae, vel studio, Contra Auicennam, Algazalē, Aueroem, &c. Fran. Picus, 2. Prenot. c. 4. And whosoeuer shall studie for it, shall doe itin vaine, since Prophesie is 1. Cor. 12.10. a Gift, and can neuer be an acquired Habite. And there is somewhat in it, that Bellarmine, in all his Dispute for the Authoritie of Generall Councels, dares not come at this Rocke. L. 2. de Conc. c. 12. He preferres the Conclusion, and the Canon, before the Acts and the deliberations of Councels, and so doe wee: but I doe not remember, that euer he speakes out, That the Conclusion is deliuered by Prophesie, or Reuelation. Sure he sounded the Shore, and found danger here. He did D sound it: For a little before he speakes plainely (Would his bad cause let him be constant?) Concilia non habent, neque scribunt immediatas reuelationes &c. sed deducunt, &c. Councels doe deduce their Conclusions. What? from Inspiration? No: But out of the Word of God, and that per ratiocinationem, by Argumentation: Neyther haue they, nor doe they write any immediate Reuelations.
The second Reason why hee will haue it propheticke in the Conclusion, is, Stapl. ib. p 474. Because that which is determined by the Church, is matter of Faith, not of Knowledge: And that therefore the Church proposing it to be beleeued, though it vse Meanes, yet it stands E not vpon Art, or Meanes, or Argument, but the Reuelation of the Holy Ghost: Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed, it should not be an Assent of Faith, but a Habit of Knowledge. This for the first part (That the Church vses the Meanes, but followes them [Page 60] not) is all one in substance with the former Reason. And for A the latter part, That then our admitting the Decree ofa Councell, would be no Assent of Faith, but a Habit of Knowledge; What great inconuenience is there, if it be graunted? For I thinke it is vndoubted Truth, That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Beleeuer, that cannot prooue, and Knowledge to the Learned, that can. And S. Augustine Cont. Fund. c. 4., I am sure in regard of one and the same thing, euen this the verie Wisedome of the Church, in her Doctrine, ascribes Vnderstanding to one sort of men, and Beleefe to another weaker sort. And Th. p. 1. q. 2. a. 2. ad 1. Nihil prohibet illud quod secundū se demonstrabile est & scibile, [...] aliquo accipi vt Credibile qui [...] non capit. Thomas goes with him. B
And for further satisfaction, if not of you, of others, this may be considered too: Man lost by sinne the Integritie of his Nature, and cannot haue Light enough to see the way to Heauen, but by Grace. This Grace was first merited, after giuen by Christ. This Grace is first kindled in Faith; by which, if wee agree not to some supernaturall Principles, which no Reason can demonstrate simply, wee can neuer see our way. But this Light, when it hath made Reason submit it selfe, cleares the Eye of Reason, it neuer puts it out. In which sense it may be is that of Lib. 3. [...] & vbique diffusa. Optatus, That the verie Catholike Church it selfe is reasonable, C as well as diffused euerie where. By which Reason enlightned (which is stronger than Reason) the Church in all Ages hath beene able either to conuert, or conuince, or Omnia genera ingeniorum subdita Scripturae. S. Aug. lib. 22. cont. Faust. [...]. 96. stop the mouthes at least of Philosophers, and the great men of Reason, in the verie point of Faith, where it is at highest. To the present occasion then. The first, immediate, Fundamentall Points of Faith, without which there is no saluation; they, as they cannot be prooued by Reason, so neither need they be determined by any Councell, nor euer were they attempted, they are so plaine set downe in the Scripture. If about the sense and D true meaning of these, or necessarie deduction out of these prime Articles of Faith, Generall Councels determine any thing, as they haue done in Nice, and the rest; there is no inconueuience, that one and the same Canon of the Councell should be beleeued, as it reflects vpon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable; Almain. 3. D. 24. q. 1. and yet knowne to the Learned, by the Meanes and Proofe by which that deduction is vouched and made good. And againe, the Conclusion of a Councell; suppose that in Nice, about the Consubstantialitie of Christ with the Father, in it selfe considered, is or may be indemonstrable by Reason; E There I beleeue and assent in Faith; but the same Conclusion Concilium Nicaenū [...] Conclusionem ex Scripturis. Bellar. 2. [...] Conc. c. 12., if you giue me the ground of Scripture, and the Creed, (and somewhat must be supposed in all, whether Faith, or Knowledge) is demonstrable by naturall Reason against any [Page 61] Arrian in the World. And if it be demonstrable, I may A know it, and haue a habit of it. And what inconuenience in this? For the weaker sort of Christians, which cannot deduce when they haue the Principle graunted, they are to rest vpon the Definition onely, and their assent is meere Faith: yea, and the Learned too, where there is not a Demonstration euident to them, assent by Faith onely, and not by Knowledge. And what inconuenience in this? Nay, the necessitie of Nature is such, that these Principles once giuen, the vnderstanding of man cannot rest, but it must be thus. And the 1. S. Pet. 3.15. Apostle would neuer haue required a man to be able to giue a reason and B an account of the Hope that is in him, if he might not be able to know his account; or haue lawfull interest to giue it, when he knew it, without preiudicing his Faith by his Knowledge. And suppose exact Knowledge and meere Beleefe cannot stand together in the same person, in regard of the same thing, by the same meanes, yet that doth not make void this Truth. For where is that exact Knowledge, or in whom, that must not meerely, in points of Faith, beleeue the Article or Ground vpon which they rest? But when that is once beleeued, it can demonstrate many things from it. And Definitions of Councels C are not Principia Fidei, Principles of Faith, but Deductions from them.
7. And now because you aske, Wherein wee are neerer to Vnitie by a Councell, if a Councell may erre? Besides the Answer giuen, I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church, which most able to preserue or reduce Christian Peace; the Romane, That a Councell cannot erre; orthe Protestants, That it can. And this I propose, not as a Rule, but leaue the Christian World to consider of it, as I doe.
1. First then I consider, Whether in those places of Scripture D before mentioned, or other, there be promised and performed to the present Church an absolute infallibilitie? or whether such an infallibilitie will notserue the turne, as Rel. Cont. 4. q. 2. p. 468. Stapleton, after much wriggling, is forced to acknowledge? One not euerieway exact: because it is enough, if the Church doe diligently insist vpon that which was once receiued: and there is not need of so great certaintie, to open and explicate that which lyes hid in the Seed of Faith sowne, and deduce from it, as to seeke out and teach that which was altogether vnknowne. And if this be so, then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of infallibilitie, E than the present Church; which if it follow the Scripture, is infallible enough, though it hath not the same degree of certaintie which the Apostles had, and the Scripture hath. Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine, that in a whole Chapter [Page 62] disputes [...] Prerogatiues, in certaintie of Truth L. 2. [...] Conc. c. 12., that the A Scripture hath aboue a Councell; and at last concludes, That they may be said to be equally certaine in infallible Truth.
2. The next thing I consider, is: Suppose this not Exact, but congruous infallibilitie in the Church; Is it not residing according to power and right of Authoritie in the whole Church, and in a Generall Councell, onely by power Sub autoritate Generalis Cōcilij. [...]. Doct. Fid. lib. 2. A. 2. c. 20. deputed, with Mandate to determine? The places of Scripture, with Expositions of the Fathers vpon them, make me apt to beleeue this. S. Peter (saith S. Augustine Petrus personam [...] Catholicae sustinet, & huic datae sunt claues quum Petro datae. De Agon. Chr. c. 30.) did not receiue the Keyes of the Church, but in the person of the Church. Now suppose B the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth, and shut out Error; and suppose the Key rightly vsed, infallible in this: yet this infallibilitie is primely in the Church; in whose person, not strictly in his owne, S. Peter receiued the Keyes.
Here Stapleton layes crosse my way againe. He would thrust me out of this Consideration. [...]. Cont. 6. q. 3 A. 5. Sed propter Primatum quē gerebat Ecclesiae: ideoque etsi finaliter Ecclesia accepit, tamen formaliter Petrus accepit. He graunts, that S. Peter receiued these Keyes indeed, and in the person of the Church; but that was because he was Primate of the Church: [...] therefore the Church receiued the Keyes finally, but S. Peter formally: that is (if I mistake him not) S. Peter for himselfe and C his Successors, receiued the Keyes in his owne Right; but to this end, to benefit the Church, of which he was made Pastor. But I am in a Consideration, and I would haue this considered, where it is euer read, That to receiue a thing in the person of another, is onely meant finally to receiue it, that is, to his good, and not in his right. I should thinke, he that receiues any thing in the person of another, receiues it indeed to his good, and to his vse, but in his right too: And that the primarie and formall right is not in the receiuer, but in him whose person hee sustaines, while he receiues it. This stumbling-blocke then is D nothing; and in my Consideration it stands still, That the Church in generall receiued the Keyes, and all Power signified by them, and by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to vse them, and perhaps to open and shut in some things infallibly, when the Pope and a Generall Councell too (forgetting both her and her Rule, the Scripture) are to seeke how to turne these Keyes in their Wards.
3. The third thing I consider, is: Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant, an absolute infallibilitie in the prime Foundations of Faith, absolutely necessarie to saluation; E and that this power of not erring so, is not communicable to a Generall Councell, which represents it, but that the Councell is subiect to error: This supposition doth not onely preserue that which you desire in the Church, an Infallibilitie; but it [Page 63] meets with all inconueniences, which vsually haue done, and A doe perplexe the Church. And here is still a remedie for all things: For if priuate respects, if Many of these were potent at Ariminum, and Seleucia. Bandies in a Faction, if power and fauour of some parties, if weakenesse of them which haue the managing, if any mixture of State-Councels, if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God, if any thing else sway and wrinch the Councell; Determinationibus quae à Concilio, vel Pontifice summo fiūt, super ijs [...] quae substantiā fidei concernunt, necessario credendum est, quod dum vniuersalis Ecclesia non reclamet. Fr. Pic. Mirand. Theor. 8. the whole Church, vpon euidence found in expresse Scripture, or demonstration of this miscarriage, hath power to represent her selfe in another Bodie, or Councell, and to take order for what was amisse, eyther practised or concluded. So here is a meanes, without infringing any lawfull Authoritie B of the Church, to preserue or reduce Vnitie, and yet graunt, as the B. did, and as the Artic. 21. Church of England doth, That a Generall Councell may erre. And this course the Church tooke, did call and represent her selfe in a new Councell, and define against the Hereticall Conclusions of the former: as in the case at Ariminum, and the second of Ephesus, is euident.
4. The next thing I consider, is: Suppose a Generall Councell infallible in all things which are of Faith: If it prooue not so, but that an Error in the Faith be concluded; the same C erring Opinion that makes it thinke it selfe infallible, makes the Error of it seeme irreuocable. And when Truth (which lay hid) shall be brought to light, the Church (who was lulled asleepe by the Opinion of Infallibilitie, is left open to all manner of Distractions, as it appeares at this day. And that a Councell may erre (besides all other instances, which are not few) appeares by that Error of the Councell of Sess. 13. Constance. And one instance is enough to ouerthrow a Generall, be it a Councell. S. Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. 23. Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds. To breake Christs Institution, is a damnable D Error, and so confessed by Returne of vntruths vpon M. Iewel, Ar. 2. Stapleton. The Councell is bold, and defines peremptorily, That to communicate in both kinds, is not necessarie, with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consider with me, Is this an Error, or not? 4. de Eucharist. c. 26. Bellarmine, and Stapleton, and you too, say it is not; because to receiue vnder both kinds, is not by Diuine Right. No? no sure. For it was not Christs Bell. [...]. Precept, but his Example. Why, but I had thought, Christs Institution of a Sacrament had beene more than his Example onely, and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament, the Matter and Forme, as a Precept: Therefore E speake out, and denie it to be Christs Institution, or else graunt with Stapleton, It is a damnable Error to goe against it. If you can prooue, that Christs Institution is not as binding to vs as a Precept (which you shall neuer be able) take the Precept [Page 64] with it, S. Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. [...], in Liturg. S. Chrysoft. Drinke yee All of this: which though you shift A as you can, yet you can neuer make it other than it is, A Binding Precept. But Bellarmine hath yet one better Deuice than this, to saue the Councell. Hee saith it is a meere Calumnie, and that the Councell hath no such thing; That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiuing vnder both kinds, but to the time of Receiuing it, after Supper; in which the Councell saith, the Custome of the Church is to be obserued Non obstante, notwithstanding Christs Example. How foule Bellarmine is in this, must appeare by the words of the Councell, which are these: Licet Christus post Coenam instituerit, & suis Discipulis administrauerit sub vtraque specie Panis & Vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum, tamen hoc Non obstante, non debet confici post Coenam, nec recipi nisi à ieiunis. (Here Bellarmine [...], and goes no further, but the Councell goes on.) Et similiter quòd licet in Primitiua Ecclesia Sacramenta reciperentur sub vtra que specie à Fidelibus, tamen haec Consuetudo, vt à Laicis sub specie Panis tantum suscipiatur, habenda est pro Lege, quam non licet reprobare: Et asserere hanc illicitam esse, est Erroneum. Et pertinaciter asserentes sunt [...] tanquam Haeretici. Sess. 13. Though Christ instituted this venerable B Sacrament, and gaue it his Disciples after Supper, vnder both kinds of Bread and Wine, yet Non obstante, notwithstanding this, it ought not to be consecrated after Supper; nor receiued, but fasting. And likewise, that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithfull vnder both kinds; yet this Custome, that it should be receiued by Laymen onely vnder the kind of Bread, is to be held for a Law, which may C not be refused. And to say this is an vnlawfull Custome of Receiuing vnder one kind, is erroneous; and they which persist in saying so, are to be punished and driuen out as Heretikes.
Now, where is here any slander of the Councell? The words are plaine, and the Non obstante must necessarily (for ought I can yet see) be referred to both Clauses in the words following, because both Clauses went before it, and hath as much force against Receiuing vnder both kinds, as against Receiuing after Supper. Yea, and the after-words of the Councell couple both together, in this reference: for it followes, D Et similiter, And so likewise, that though in the Primitiue Church, &c. And a man, by the Definition of this Councell, may be an Heretike, for standing to Christs Institution, in the very matter of the Sacrament: And the Churches Law for One kind may not be refused, but Christs Institution vnder Both kinds may. And yet this Councell did not erre: No; take heed of it.
But your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable than this: For consider any Bodie Collectiue, be it more or lesse vniuersall, whensoeuer it assembles it selfe, Did it euer giue more power E to the Representing Bodie of it, than binding power vpon all particulars, and it selfe too? And did it euer giue this power any otherwise, than with this Reseruation in Nature, That it would call againe, and reforme, yea, and if need were, abrogate [Page 65] any Law, or Ordinance, vpon iust cause made euident to it. A And this Power, no Bodie Collectiue, Ecclesiasticall, or Ciuill, can put out of it selfe, or giue away to a Parliament, or Councell, or call it what you will, that represents it: And in my Consideration, it holds strongest in the Church. For a Councell hath power to order, settle, and define Differences arisen concerning the Faith. This Power the Councell hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ, but it was prudently taken vp in the Church, from the Act. 15. In Nouo Testamento exemplum celebrationis Conciliorum ab Apostolis habemus, &c. Iob. de [...], sum. de Ecclesia, l. 3. c. 2. Apostles Example. So that to hold Councels to this end, is apparant Apostolicall Tradition written: but the Power which Councels so held, haue, is from B the whole Catholike Church, whose members they are; and the Churches Power, from God. And This is more reasonable a great deale than that of Bel. [...]. de Con. cap. 18. Pontificē non posse se subijcere sententiae coactiuae Conciliorum. this Power the Church cannot further giue away to a Generall Councell, than that the Decrees of it shall bind all particulars, and it selfe; but not bind the Church from calling againe, and in the after calls vpon iust cause to order, yea, and if need be, to abrogate former Acts; I say, vpon iust cause. For if the Councell be lawfully called, and proceed orderly, and conclude according to the Rule, the Scripture; the whole Church cannot but approoue the Councell, and then the Definitions of it can neuer be questioned after. C And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this, so long as no Power but her owne may meddle, or offer to infringe any Definition of hers, made in her representatiue Bodie, a lawfull Generall Councell. And certaine it is, no Power but her owne may doe this. Nor doth this open any gappe to priuate spirits. For all Decisions in such a Councell, are binding: And because the whole Church can meet no other way, the Councell shall remaine the Supreame, Externall, Liuing, Temporarie, Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies. Onely the whole Church, and shee alone, hath power, when Scripture D or Demonstration is found, and peaceably tendered to her, to represent her selfe againe in a new Councell, and in it to order what was amisse.
Nay, your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable. For you doe not onely make the Definition of a Generall Councell, but the Sentence of the Pope, infallible; nay, more infallible than it. For any Generall Councell may erre with you, if the Pope confirme it not. So belike, this Infallibilitie rests not in the Representatiue Bodie, the Councell, nor in the whole Bodie, the Church; but in your Head of the Church, the Pope of Rome. E Now the B. may aske you, To what end such a trouble, for a Generall Councell? Or wherein are wee neerer to Vnitie, if the Pope confirme it not? You answere (though not in the Conference, yet elsewhere) That the Pope erres not, especially [Page 66] [...] Sentence in a Generall Councell. And why especially? A Doth the deliberation of a Councell helpe any thing to the Conclusion? Surely no: for you hold the Conclusion Propheticall, the meanes fallible; and fallible Deliberations cannot aduance to a Propheticke Conclusion. And iust as the Councell is in Stapletons iudgement, for the Definition and the Proofes; so is the Pope in the iudgement of [...], lib. 6. de Locis, cap. 8. §. & quidem in. Melch Canus, and them which followed him, Propheticall in the Conclusion. The Councell then is called but onely in effect, to heare the Pope giue his Sentence in more State. Else what meanes this of Rel. Cont. 6. q. 3. A. 5. & ibid. Quià ad compescēdos importunos Haereticos, Concilij Generalis Definitio illustrior est, &c. & vulgo hominum magis satisfacit. Stapleton: The Pope, by a Councell ioyned vnto him, acquires no B new Power, or Authoritie, or certaintie in iudging, no more than a Head is the wiser, by ioyning the offices of the rest of the members to it, than it is without them? Or this of 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. Bellarmine: That all the firmenesse and infallibilitie of a Generall Councell is onely from the Pope, not partly from the Pope, and partly from the Councell? So belike the Presence is necessarie, not the Assistance: Which Opinion is the most groundlesse, and worthlesse, that euer offered to take possession of the Christian Church. And I am persuaded many learned men among your selues, scorne it at the very heart. C
You professe after, That you hold nothing against your Conscience. I must euer wonder much, how that can be true, since you hold this of the Popes Infallibilitie, especially by being Propheticall in the Conclusion. If this be true, Why doe you not lay all your strength together, all of your whole Societie, and make this one Proposition euident? All Controuersies about matter of Faith are ended, and without anie great trouble to the Christian World, if you can make this good. Till then, this shame will follow you infallibly, and eternally, That you should make the Pope, a meere man, Principium D Fidei, a Principle of Faith; and make the mouth of Christs Vicar, sole Iudge both of his Word, be it neuer so manifest, and of his Church, be shee neuer so learned, and carefull of his Truth.
The Conference growes to an end, and I must meet it againe, ere wee part: For you say,
After this, we all rising (the doubting Person) asked the B. Whether shee might be saued in the Romane Faith? E Hee answered, Shee might.
What? Not one Answere perfectly related? The Bishops Answere to this was generall, for the ignorant, that [Page 67] could not discerne the Errors of that Church; so they held A the Foundation, and conformed themselues to a Religious life. But why doe you not speake out, what the B. added in this particular? That it must needs goe harder with the doubting partie, euen in point of Saluation; because the said partie had beene brought to vnderstand verie much in these controuerted Causes of Religion. And a man that comes to know much, had need carefully bethinke himselfe, that hee oppose not knowne Truth, against the Church that made him a Christian. For Saluation may be in the Church of Rome, and yet they not find it, that make sure of it. B
I bad (the Person doubting) marke that.
This Answer I am sure troubles not you. But it seemes you would faine haue it lay a Load of Enuie vpon the B. that you professe you bad the doubting partie so carefully Marke that.
Well, you bad the said person Marke that. For what? For some great matter? or for some new? Not for some new, sure. For the Protestants haue euer beene readie for Truth, C and in Charitie, to graunt as much as might be: And therefore from the beginning, Luther. lib. de [...] arbitr. Mornay. Tract. de Ecclesia, c. 9. G. Abbot. nunc Archiepiscopus [...]. Answ. to Hill. ad Rat. 1. §. 30. & ad Rat. 3. §. 5. Hooker, lib. 3. §. 1. & Conc. in Abac. 1. 4. Field, l. 3. c. 47. &c. 6. Though some of these put in some Exceptions. many learned men graunted this. So that you need not haue put such a serious Marke that, vpon the speech of the B. as if none before him had, or none but hee would speake it. And if your Marke that, were not for some new matter, was it for some great? Yes sure, it was. For what greater than Saluation? But then I pray Marke this too, That Might be saued, graunts but a Possibilitie, no sure or safe way to Saluation. The Possibilitie I thinke cannot be denyed the Ignorants especially, because they hold the Foundation, D and suruey not the Building: And the Foundation can deceiue no man that rests vpon it. But a secure way they cannot goe, that hold with such corruptions, when they know them. Now whether it be wisedome in such a point as Saluation is, to forsake a Church, in the which the ground of Saluation is firme, to follow a Church in which it is possible one may be saued, but verie probable one may doe worse, if he looke not well to the Foundation; iudge yee: I am sure S. Augustine 1 de Bap. cont. Don. c. 3. Grauiter peccarent in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus, &c. [...] solo quod certis incerta praeponerent. thought it was not, and iudged it a great sinne, in point of Saluation, for a man to preferre incerta certis, incertainties E and naked possibilitiesbefore an euident and certaine course. And you your selues, in the point of condignitie of Merit, write it and preach it boysterously to the people; but are [Page 68] content to die, renouncing the condignitie of all your A owne Merits, and trust to Christs. If you will not venture to die as you liue, liue and beleeue in time, as you meane to die.
And one thing more, because you bid Marke this, let me remember to tell, for the benefit of others. Vpon this verie Point (That wee acknowledge an honest ignorant Papist may be saued) you, and your like, worke vpon the aduantage of our Charitie, and your owne want of it, to abuse the weake.
For thus (I am told) you worke vpon them: ‘You see the Protestants (at least manie of them) confesse there may be Saluation in B our Church; wee absolutely denie there is Saluation in theirs: therefore it is safer to come to ours, than to stay in theirs; to be where almost all graunt saluation, than where the greater part of the World denie it.’
This Argument is verie preuayling with men that cannot weigh it; and with women especially, that are put in feare by violent (though causelesse) denying Heauen vnto them. But it is stronger in the cunning, than the true force of it. For all Arguments are verie moouing, that lay their ground vpon the Aduersaries Confession; especially, if it be confessed and auouched to be true. But if you C would speake truly, and say, Manie Protestants indeed confesse, there is Saluation possible to be attained in the Romane Church, but yet the Errors of that Church are so manie (and some, such as weaken the Foundation) that it is verie hard to goe that way to Heauen, especially to them that haue had the Truth manifested; the heart of this Argument were broken.
Besides, the force of this Argument lyes vpon two things, one expressed, the other vpon the By.
First, That which is expressed, is, Wee and our Aduersaries D consent, That there is saluation to some in the Romane Church. What? would you haue vs as malicious (at least as rash) as your selues are to vs, and denie you so much as possibilitie of saluation? If wee should, wee might make you in some things straine for a Proofe. But wee haue not so learned Christ, as eyther to returne euill for euill in this headie course, or to denie Saluation to some ignorant silly Soules, whose humble, peaceable obedience, makes them safe among any part of men, that professe the Foundation, Christ. And therefore seeke not to helpe our cause, by denying this comfort E to silly Christians, as you most fiercely doe, where you can come to worke vpon them. And this was an old Tricke of the Donatists: For in the Point of Baptisme (Whether that [Page 69] [...] Church, or in the part of Donatus) A they [...] all to be baptised among them: Why? because both parts [...], that [...] was true [...] the [...]; which that peeuish Sect most vniustly denyed the sound part, as S. Augustine Esse verò apud Donatistas Baptismum, & illi asserunt, & nos concedimus, &c. Lib. 1. de Bap. cont. Don. c. 3. deliuers it. I would aske now, Had not they Orthodoxe Baptisme among them, because the Donatists denyed it iniuriously? Or should the Orthodoxe, against Truth, haue denyed Baptisme among the Donatists, to crie [...] with them? Or that their Argument might not be the stronger, because both parts graunted? But marke this; how farre you runne from all common Principles of B Christian Peace, as well as Christian Truth, while you denie Saluation most vniustly to vs, from which you are further off your selues. Besides, if this were or could be made a concluding Argument, I pray why doe not you beleeue with vs in the Point of the Eucharist? For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England, That in the most blessed Sacrament, the worthie Receiuer is by his Spiritualis mā ducatio quod per animam fit, ad Christi carnem in Sacramento pertingit. Caiet. To. 2. Opusc. de Euchar. Tr. 2. c. 5. Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and Reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ, truly and really, and of all the benefits of his Passion. Your [...] adde a manner of this his presence, Transubstantiation, C which manie denie; and the Lutherans a manner of this presence, Consubstantiation, which more denie. If this Argument be good, then euen for this consent, it is safer communicating with the Church of England, than with the Romane or Lutheran, because all agree in this Truth, not in any other Opinion. And therefore, if you will force the Argument, to make that the safest way of Saluation, which differing parts agree on; Why doe you not yeeld to the force of the same Argument, in the [...] of the Sacrament, one of the most immediate meanes of Saluation, where not onely the D most, but all agree?
Secondly, The other vpon the By, which helpesthis Argument, is your continuall poore Out-crie against vs, That wee cannot be saued, because wee are [...] of the Church. Sure if I thoughtI were out, I would get in as fast as I could. But what doe you meane by Out of the Church? Sure, out of the Romane Church. Why, but the Romane Church and the Church of England are but two distinct members of that Catholike Church, which is spread ouer the face of the Earth. Therefore Rome is not the House where the Church dwells, E but Rome it selfe, as well as other particular Churches, dwells in this great Vniuersall House; vnlesse you will shut vp the Church in Rome, as the Donatists did in Africke. I come a [Page 70] little lower. Rome, and other [...] [...], are in this A [...] And Daughter Sion was Gods owne [...] of old, of the Church. Isai. 1. 8. [...], Hyppol. Orat. de Consum. Mundi. Et omnis Ecclesia Virgo appellata est. S. Aug. Tr. 13. in S. Ioh. [...], to whom ( [...] Christ) the care of the Household is committed by God the Father, and the Catholike Church, the Mother, of [...] Christians. Rome, as an elder Sister, had a great [...] committed vnto her in and from the prime times of the Church, and to her Bishop in her: but at this time (to [...] passe manie [...] that [...] formerly beene in the House) England, and some other Sisters of hers, are fallen out in the House. What then? Will the Father and the Mother, God and the Church, [...] one Child out, because another is angrie with it? Or when B did Christ giue that Power to the Elder Sister, [...] and her [...], the Bishop there, should thrust out what Child [...] pleased? Especially when shee her selfe is [...] accused to haue giuen the offence, that is taken in the House? Or will not both Father and Mother be sharper to her for this vniust and vnnaturall vsage of her younger Sisters, but their [...] Children? Nay, is it not the next way to make them [...] her out of doores, that is so [...] to the rest? It is well for all Christian men, and Churches, that the Father and Mother of them are [...] so [...], as some would haue them. C And Saluation need not be feared of any [...] Child, [...] outing from the Church; because this Elder [...] are discouered in the House, and [...] growne [...] for it to them that complayned. But as Children crie when they are awaked, so doe you, and [...] with all that come [...] you. And Returne of vntruths vpon M. Iewel, Ar. 4. fol. 67. [...] confesses, That yee were in [...] dead sleepe, [...] much [...], when the [...] you. Now if you can prooue, that Rome is [...] the Catholike Church it selfe (as you commonly call it) speake out and [...] it. In the meane time you may [...] too, if you will; and D it seemes you doe: for here you forget [...] what the B. said to you.
The doubting Person (said the B. to me) may be better saued in it, than you.
[...] Rom. 14.4. E [Page 71] [...] (that is, easier) than you; than [...] man, that knowes so A much of Truth, and opposes against it, as you and your [...] doe. How farre you know Truth, other men may iudge by your proofes, and causes of Knowledge; but how [...] you oppose it when it is knowne, that is within, and no man can know, but God and your selues. Howsoeuer, where the Foundation is but held, there for Caeteram turbam non intelligēdi viuacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit. S. August. cont. Fund. c. 4. ordinarie men, it is not the [...] of vnderstanding, but the simplicitie of beleeuing, that makes them safe. For Saint Augustiue speakes there of men in the Church; and no man can be simply said to be out of the visible Church, that is baptized, and holds the Foundation. B And as it is the simplicitie of beleeuing, that makes them safe, yea safest; so is it sometimes a quicknesse of vnderstanding; that louing it selfe and some by respects too well, makes men take vp an vnsafe way about the Faith. So that there is no question, but manie were saued in corrupted times of the Church, when their Ipsis Magistris pereuntibus: nisi fortè ante mortem resipuerint. Luth. de Seru. Arb. Leaders, vnlesse they repented before death, were lost. And Saint Augustines De vtil. Cred. c. 1. Si mihi videretur vnus & idem Haereticus & Haereticis credens homo, &c. Rule will be true, That in all Corruptions of the Church, there will euer be a difference betweene an Heretike and a plaine wellmeaning man, that is mis-led, and beleeues an Heretike. I pray you C Marke this, and so by Gods grace will I. For our Reckoning will bee heauier, if wee mis-lead on eytherside, than theirs [...] vs. But I see I must looke to my selfe, for you are secure: For,
D r White (said I) hath secured me, that none of our Errors be damnable, so long as wee hold them not against our Conscience. And I hold none against my Conscience. D
It seemes then you haue two Securities, D r Whites Assertion, and your Conscience. What Assurance D r White [...] you, I cannot tell of my selfe; nor as things stand, may I rest vpon your Relation: It may be you vse him no better than you doe the Bishop. And sure it is so: For I haue since spoken with D r White, and hee auowes this, and no other Answere.
Hee was asked in the conferense betweene you, ‘Whether Popish Errors were Fundamentall? To [...] hee gaue [...], by distinction of the persons which held and professed the E Errors: namely, That the Errors were Fundamentall, reductiue, by a Reducement, if they which embraced them, [...] adhere to them, hauing sufficient [...] to be better enformed: [Page 72] nay further, that they were materially, and in the verie kind and nature A of them, Leauen, Drosse, Hay, and Stubble. Yet hee thought 1. Cor. 3.12. withall, that such as were mis-led by Education, or long Custome, or over-valuing the [...] of the [...] Church, and did in [...] of heart embrace them, might by their generall [...], and Faith in the Merit of Christ, attended with Charitie [...] other Vertues, find mercie at Gods hands. But that hee should say Signanter, and expressely, That none eyther of yours, or your fellowes [...], were damnable, so long as you hold them not against Conscience; that hee vtterly disauowes. You deliuered nothing, to [...] such a Confession from him. And for your selfe, hee could obserue B but small loue of Truth, few signes of Grace in you (as hee tells mee:) Yet hee will not presume to iudge you, or your Saluation; it is the Word of Christ that must iudge you, as the S. Ioh. 12.48. latter Day.’
For your Conscience, you are the happier in your Error, that you hold nothing against it; especially, if you speake not against it, while you say so. But this no man can know, but your Conscience: For no man knowes the thoughts of a man, 1. Cor. 2. 11. but the spirit of a man that is within him; to which I leaue you. But yet you leaue not: For you tell me, C
The (doubting partie) asked, Whether shee might be saued in the Protestants Faith? Vpon [...] Soule (said the B.) you may. Vpon my Soule (said I) there is but one sauing Faith, and that is the Romane.
So (it seemes) the B. was confident for the Faith professed in the Church of England; else hee would not haue taken D the Saluation of another vpon his Soule. And sure hee had reason of his Confidence. For to beleeue the Scripture, and the Creeds; to beleeue these in the sense of the antient Primitiue Church; to receiue the foure great Generall Councels, so much magnified by Antiquitie; to beleeue all Points of Doctrine, generally receiued as Fundamentall, in the Church of Christ; is a Faith, in which to liue and die, cannot but giue Saluation. And therefore the B. went vpon a sure ground, in the aduenture of his Soule vpon that Faith. Besides, in all the Points of Doctrine that are controuerted betweene vs. E I would faine see anie one Point, maintained by the Church of England, that can bee prooued to depart from the Foundation. You haue manie dangerous Errors about it, in that [Page 73] which you call the Romane Faith. But there I leaue you, to A looke to your owne Soule, and theirs whom you seduce. Yet this is true too, That there is but one sauing Faith. But then euerie thing which you call De Fide, Of the Faith, because some Councell or other hath defined it, is not such a breach from that one sauing Faith, as that hee which expressely beleeues it not, nay, as that hee which beleeues the contrarie, is excluded from Saluation. And 3. De Eccl. Mil. c. 14. Bellarmine is forced to graunt this, There are manie things, de Fide, which are not absolutely necessarie to Saluation. Waldens. Doct. Fid. l. 2. A. 2. §. 23. Therefore there is a Latitude in Faith, especially in reference to Saluation. To set a Bound B to this, and strictly to define it, Iust thus farre you must beleeue in euerie particular, or incurre Damnation, is no worke for my Penne. These two things I am sure of: One, That your peremptorie establishing of so manie things, that are remote Deductions from the Foundation, hath with other Errors, lost the Peace and Vnitie of the Church; for which you will one day answere. And the other, That you are gone further from the Foundation of this one sauing Faith, than can euer bee prooued wee haue done. But to conclude, you tell vs, C
Vpon this and the precedent Conferences, the Ladie rested in iudgement fully satisfied (as shee told a confident friend) of the Truth of the Romane Churches Faith. Yet vpon frailetie, and feare to offend the King, shee yeelded to goe to Church: For which, shee was after verie sorrie, as some of her friends can testifie. D
This is all personall. And how that Honourable Ladie is settled in Conscience, how in Iudgement, I know not. This (I thinke) is made cleare enough, That that which you said in this and the precedent Conferences, could settle neyther, vnlesse in some that were settled, or setting before. As little doe I know, what shee told anie Friend of the Romane Cause: No more, whether it were frailetie, or feare, that made her yeeld to goe to Church; nor how sorrie shee was for it; nor who can testifie that sorrow. This I am sure of; If shee repent, and God forgiue her other sinnes, shee will E farre more easily bee able to answere for her comming to Church, than shee will for the leauing of the Church of England, and following the Superstitions and Errors which the [Page 74] Romane Church hath added in point of Faith, and worship of A God.
I pray God giue her Mercie, and all of you a Light of his Truth, and a Loue to it first; that you may no longer be made Instruments of the Popes boundlesse Ambition, and this most vnchristian braine-sicke Deuice, That in all Controuersies of the Faith hee is infallible, and that by way of Inspiration and Prophesie, in the Conclusion which hee giues. To due consideration of this, and Gods Mercie in Christ, I leaue B you.